9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed the same at ₹ 5,000/- per cent, however, without any discussion - the document dated 14.2.1984 in respect of S.F.No.165/1 at Kurichi Village correctly shows the fair market value at ₹ 8,393/- and the Tribunal after allowing certain deductions for the three year period, i.e. the difference between the date of acquisition by the assessee, namely, 02.02.1981 and till the date of the noted document, to come to a conclusion that ₹ 5,000/- should be fair market price – the determination by the Tribunal does not warrant any further modification or interference – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (A) Nos.118 and 119 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same Hasan kutty at the rate of ₹ 3.75 lakhs per cent, totalling to ₹ 1,15,20,000/-. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 6,64,747/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 1,03,55,253/- and expenditure on transfer at ₹ 5,00,000/-. 3. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assesee was asked to produce the copy of the sale deeds and evidence for claim of deduction of ₹ 65,18,524/-. In response to the notice issued by the authority, the assessee produced a letter dated 14.10.2010 of the Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore showing the guideline value as of 01.04.1981 at ₹ 300/- per cent for S.F.No.141/12. Time was given to the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee produced a copy of the document showing the sale of property on 14.12.1984 in respect of S.F.No.165/1,Kuruchi Village. On consideration of the sale deeds, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for the assessment year 2009-10 held as follows: 6.2. I have perused the submissions made by the appellant and the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has taken the guide line value as per the Sub-Registrar's office as the value of the property on 1.4.1981 for SF No.141/1. The Assessing Officer has given an opportunity to the assessee to furnish his objections, if any, regarding adoption of the guide line value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal, taking note of the original claim made by the assessee, the fair market value determined by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the plea of the assessee with regard to the fair market value of the land, determined the same at ₹ 5,000/- per cent. The Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal, held as follows: 13. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that in this case, the assessee had inherited the property, which was acquired before 01.04.1981. We also find from the assessment order that the assessee had entered into an agreement with Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court by filing the present Tax Case (Appeals). 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 12. Normally, we would expect the Revenue to challenge the order of the Tribunal on the fair market value. But in this case, the assessee apparently is stretching his claim further before this Court and has chosen to file these appeals, which we find as not justified. There is absolutely no basis for the claim made by the assessee for determining the fair market value. The documents produced before the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
