IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora and Sampada Ingale, CA Department by : Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT (through virtual)

Date of hearing : 12-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 14-01-2026

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, V.P:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

25.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an HUF and filed his return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.26,05,110/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details before the Assessing Officer from time to time.

3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted from the various details furnished by the assessee that the assessee along with the other co-owners has sold the immovable property for Rs.9,10,73,028/- out of which the share of the assessee was Rs.3,10,00,000/-. The assessee, while computing the long term capital gain, has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs.14,83,000/- for his 30% share as on 01.04.1981 i.e. the base year. This, according to the Assessing Officer translates to Rs.415/- per square meter. Thus, while claiming indexation, the indexed cost of acquisition was taken at Rs.1,51,85,920/-. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the assessee on the ground that the same appears to be unreasonably high. On perusal of the valuation report submitted by the assessee he noted certain anomalies. He noted that the valuation report does not explicitly mention the purpose of valuation. The valuer has completely disregard the IGR guidelines. The value of land in 2003 was Rs.790/- per square meter and in 1981 was Rs.415/- per square meter. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer over a period of 23 years the value of the land did not even double and therefore does not appear to be reasonable. Further, he observed that the valuer himself admits that the land was just an agricultural land, was under litigation and did not have a marketable title. However, he has completely ignored these facts and has arbitrarily discounted the current i.e. 2015 market value by approximately 92% and arrived at a value for 1981. He, therefore, issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the valuer Shri Avinash R. Pundlik, who appeared before the Assessing Officer and his statement was recorded. The Assessing Officer also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the co-owners of the said property namely Shri Ramchandra Paranjpe, Mrs. Swati Paranjpe & Mrs. Sumita Datar in order to verify the cost of acquisition adopted by them. From the details furnished by them, he noted that the cost of acquisition adopted by the co-owners is in line with the valuation arrived at as per the instructions of the Sub-Registrar, Haveli-2 i.e. Rs.80/- per square meter. In view of the above, rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer computed the cost of acquisition at Rs.80/- per square meter as on 01.04.1981. He accordingly computed the long term capital gain at Rs.76,53,322/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:

4. Since the assessee has already disclosed the long term capital gain of Rs.40,40,671/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.36,12,651/- to the total income