Section 2(47), 45, 54EC, 271 of Income tax Act, 1961— Long term capital gain— In the instant case, appeal is preferred by revenue challenging the order passed by the ITAT. 

Revenue contended that the ITAT has erred in not upholding sale consideration taken by the AO instead of sale consideration offered by the assessee, even though the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence such as sale deed etc. to substantiate its claim regarding the sale consideration.

Held that—  we are of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the tribunal in allowing the appeals and remanding the matters to the A.O.

In the result, no substantial question of law arise in both these appeals for consideration of this Court. Both the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, as held by the tribunal, now the A.O. to decide the issue afresh in the light of the claim of the assessee for substituting the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 as the cost of acquisition and the assessee is directed to furnish necessary details in support of its claim and the A.O. to consider the claim of exemption as per the provisions of the law in light of the relevant CBDT Circular and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, VADODARA VERSUS RITAL R. PATEL] [2019] 16 ITCD Online (30) [GUJARAT HIGH COURT]