Pravin Amrutlal Patel, , Ahmedabad vs Assessee

The present MA is directed at the instance of assessee pointing out apparent error in the order dated 10th January, 2014 passed in ITA No. 2528/Ahd/2012.

MA No. 120/Ahd/2014 (In I.T.A No. 2528/Ahd/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Pravin Amrutlal Patel vs. ITO

2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was owner and in possession to the extent of ¼ share in the non-agricultural land at survey 603, T.P. Nagar Scheme No. 22 Final plot no. 128 revenue estate Chandkheda, Distt. Gandhinagar measuring 2194 square meter. This land was sold by the assesssee on 13th May, 2008. He did not disclose long term capital gain on this land in the return of income. In response to the query of Assessing Officer he computed the long term capital gain as under:-

Sr. Particulars Date of Date of Sales Purchase Purchase Gain No. sale purchase Value value indexed 1 Land S. 13.05.2008 01.04.1981 4625000 752640 4380365 244635 No. 603 Index of 2008-09:582

3. During the assessment proceeding, ld. Assessing Officer called for the details of valuation of this land for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. It was informed to the Assessing Officer that the details for the purpose of levy of stamp duty are being compiled only w.e.f. 1999. The rates are not available of the purpose of indexation as on 01-04-1981. The rates as on 01-04-1999 were informed as 80 per square meter. The Assessing Officer has worked out the total value of the land at Rs. 2,50,880/- (80x3136 sq. mt.). Since the assessee has the ¼ share, therefore, the purchase cost in the share of assessee was 62,072/-. He computed long term capital gain as under:-

Sr. Particular Date of Date of Sales Purchas Purchas Gain No s sale purchase Value e value e . indexed 1 Land S. 15.05.200 01.04.198 46,25,00 62,720 3,65,030 42,59,97 No. 603 8 1 0 0 Index of 2008-09 :582 Index of 1981 :100"

MA No. 120/Ahd/2014 (In I.T.A No. 2528/Ahd/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Pravin Amrutlal Patel vs. ITO

4. The tribunal has upheld this working of the Assessing Officer vide its order dated 10th January, 2014. In the MA, learned counsel for the assessee contended that decision of ITAT, Culcutta passed in the case of Naville De Noranche vs. ACIT, reported in 26 SOT 35 (Kol) was relied upon in which it was contended that section 50C cannot be taken into consideration for evaluating the fair market value as on 01-04-1981. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Tribunal has committed an apparent error while not referring the order of ITAT, Culcutta. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of ITAT and contended that no apparent mistake has been committed.

5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the power of rectification u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is ought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The question before the Tribunal was, what could be fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 for the purposes of computing the indexed purchase price which is to be deducted for working out the long term capital gain. Assessing Officer has not strictly relied upon on section 50C. He has collected the information exhibiting the rates available in the nearby areas as a corroborative piece of evidence. The Tribunal has appreciated it as a matter of fact for working out the purchase price of the assessee which is to be indexed as on 01-04-1981. It is purely a factual issue where interpretation of any provision on which ratio of any law could be applicable, was not involved. Therefore, in our opinion, Tribunal has not MA No. 120/Ahd/2014 (In I.T.A No. 2528/Ahd/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 4 Pravin Amrutlal Patel vs. ITO

committed any apparent mistake which requires rectification; hence, miscellaneous application is rejected.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12-06-2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(N.S. SAINI) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 12/06/2015 ak

आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. Assessee

2. Revenue

3. Concerned CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. Guard file.

By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद