Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), dt. 27th Feb., 2004, relating to the asst. yr. 1996-97. 2. The assessee has raised three issues in the present appeal. 3. The first issue pertains to the treatment of the loss arising on account of transfer of land measuring 4.063 hectares to the Forest Department in lieu of the use of forest land for laying the drainage for discharge of effluent. The AO treated the loss as capital loss whereas according to the assessee, the same ought to have been allowed as "business loss". The Tribunal in para 18 of its order has observed as under : It is admitted by the assessee that the land transferred to the Forest Department was held as capital asset. Sub-clause (i) of clause (47) of Section 2 of the IT Act, 1961, defines transfer in relation to a capital asset, includes, the sale, exchange or relinquished the land measuring 4.063 hectares in favour of the Forest Department. Therefore, this action of the assessee squarely falls in the definition of transfer under Section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. But the assessee has relinquished the land in lieu of the Forest Department allowing use of their land for laying down the drainage. But for the assessee transferring such land to the Forest Department, the assessee would have incurred extra cost in terms of money. Therefore, the right of the assessee to use forest (for) discharge of effluents, is a valuable right acquired in lieu of transfer of its own land. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO for taking into account the value of the right to use forest land as a consideration for transfer of this land. We also agree with the learned CIT(A) that land so transferred to the Forest Department was a capital asset. Therefore, loss/gain arising on transfer of such land would be a capital loss/gain and not a business loss. The learned CIT(A) has already directed the AO to examine the claim of the assessee for carry forward of such capital loss, if any. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, loss/gain arising on transfer of such land would be a capital loss/gain and not a business loss. The learned CIT(A) has already directed the AO to examine the claim of the assessee for carry forward of such capital loss, if any. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). The same is upheld and this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that since the land had not been transferred for any consideration, no loss under the head "Capital gains" could be determined. 5. At the outset, this contention cannot be accepted because the Tribunal has clearly noticed that it was an admitted position that the land in question was held as a capital asset by the assessee and not as a business asset. It has also been noticed that the assessee had relinquished the land in lieu of Forest Department allowing use of their land for laying down the drainage. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the said right can be assessed in monetary value which would be the consideration for the transfer of capital asset. Even otherwise, even if it was to be accepted that no loss under the head "Capital gains" could be determined, it is not understood as to how this fact would entitle the assessee to claim the loss in question as a revenue loss. Counsel has not been able to refer to any provision of law or to any authority to substantiate this claim. 6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is correct and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 7. The second issue relates to the finding of the Tribunal that out of the sum of Rs. 14.75 crores, paid by the assessee for purchasing the paper division of M/s Zenith Limited, only a sum of Rs. 10,18,28,343 could be allocated towards cost of the fixed assets including plant and machinery. 8. It is not in dispute that the assessee had purchased the paper division of M/s Zenith Limited for a total consideration of Rs. 14.75 crores as a going concern. The consideration obviously included not only the cost of the fixed assets but also of other benefits like licences, entitlements, permits and quota rights relating to the said paper division. 8. It is not in dispute that the assessee had purchased the paper division of M/s Zenith Limited for a total consideration of Rs. 14.75 crores as a going concern. The consideration obviously included not only the cost of the fixed assets but also of other benefits like licences, entitlements, permits and quota rights relating to the said paper division. The assessee has not given any bifurcation allocating the cost towards each of the assets taken over by it. It has, however, furnished a report from M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Limited wherein, the value of fixed assets has been determined at Rs. 10,18,28,343. Except for this report, there is no other material on record from where the cost of fixed assets could be determined. It is in this background that the Tribunal vide para No. 32 of its order has rejected the claim of the assessee, as under : We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also examined the facts, evidence and material on record. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. It is a fact that the assessee purchased the paper division from M/s Zenith Ltd., as a going concern. A copy of the agreement placed on file clearly states that the vendor had sold the paper division together with property, plant and machinery, all the licences, capacities, permits and quota rights relating to the said paper division. No doubt Clause 2 of the agreement refers to that the benefits of all licences, entitlements, quota rights and all other benefits would be without any consideration. But it is a fact that when the unit is sold as a going concern, the same does not include only the value of fixed assets but also other benefits. It is not the case of the assessee that all licences, entitlements, quota rights, etc. do not involve any cost at all. Since purchase consideration paid by the assessee is mentioned at Rs. 14.75 crores without allocating any specific amount to the cost of fixed and other assets and other benefits, it is reasonable to allocate appropriate cost to the other benefits excluding cost of the fixed assets. It is not in dispute that M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd, is the most reputed concern in the matter of valuation of various assets. It is not in dispute that M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd, is the most reputed concern in the matter of valuation of various assets. After considering various aspects, M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd., determined the value of capital assets at Rs. 10,18,28,343. As per the provisions of Section 43(1) of the IT Act, actual cost means the actual cost of the assets paid by the assessee. Since, the value of these fixed assets has been determined by M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd., at Rs. 10,18,28,343 it is reasonable to believe that the total consideration of Rs. 14.75 crores includes cost of Rs. 10,18,28,343 for acquisition of the capital assets. The assessee has not placed any other paper/documents on record to show that actual value of the capital assets was more than Rs. 10.18 crores.Further, the assessee has not placed any other correspondence exchanged between the two parties to show that the assessee paid higher consideration over the value determined by M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd., for acquisition of the capital assets. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities, below were justified in allocating an amount of Rs. 10,18,28,343 for acguisition of capital assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Then the same is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. (emphasis, italicised in print, supplied) 9. We are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 14.75 crores was the consideration for the entire unit as a going concern. The assessee has placed no material to give bifurcation of costs towards various assets. Under such circumstances, the same had to be estimated. The Tribunal has adopted the best available evidence in the form of report of the expert M/s S.R. Baltiboi & Consultants (P) Ltd. It is a well established principle of law that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act, this Court shall not substitute its own estimate for that of the Tribunal unless it is shown that the estimate of the Tribunal is based on no material or is totally perverse and irrational. Such is not the case in the present appeal. 10. Such is not the case in the present appeal. 10. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal on this issue also does not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. 11. Confronted with this position, counsel for the assessee contended that the balance amount of Rs. 4,56,71,657 (Rs. 14.75 crores - Rs. 10,18,28,343) should have been allowed as revenue expenditure. We are afraid that we cannot entertain this contention because this does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant has not even referred to the grounds raised by the Tribunal to show that such a plea was raised. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Tribunal to claim such relief, if permissible under the law. 12. The third issue raised in this appeal is against the finding of the Tribunal that the AC) was justified in disallowing Rs. 84,474 out of the Diwali expenses. The Tribunal has observed that as per the audit report furnished by the assessee itself, it was clear that the expenses incurred under this head exceeded the limits prescribed under Rule 6B of the IT Rules, 1962 (for short, "the Rules"), by Rs. 84,474. Accordingly, the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance to this extent. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the provisions of Rule 6B of the Rules are not applicable to Diwali expenses in view of the clarification issued by the Board vide its letter dt. 3rd Oct., 1968, that the earlier instruction issued in this behalf vide Circular No. 17 of 1943 had long since been withdrawn.