9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate to adopt two different valuations in respect of identical shares in the same property for the same period. A Division Bench of this Court in Jaswant Rai's case (1977 (2) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) noticed that where the property was jointly owned, the valuation in the case of one co-sharer should be followed in the case of other co-sharer unless different circumstances are demonstrated. Further, the Apex Court in Berger Paints India Limited's case (2004 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ) while adjudicating identical issue held if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid For Subsequent orders down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t alongwith co-owners had been allotted plot bearing No.SCO No.52-53, Sector 9, Chandigarh by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. A sum of ` 14,13,860/- was stated to have been invested towards the construction of the property in two assessment years i.e 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Assessing officer referred the matter to the Valuation Officer in order to ascertain the actual cost of construction, who determined the same at ₹ 23,73,012/-. For the period relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the cost of construction was determined at ₹ 18,04,216/- as against declared at ₹ 10,75,348/-, thereby giving a difference in the cost of construction at ₹ 7,29,436/-. The assessee's share out of this difference was determined at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer and there was a difference of ₹ 1,82,359/- on account of assessee's share being 25% for the assessment year 1994-95 and ₹ 58,825/- for the assessment year 1995-96. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal had relied upon the order in the case of Paramjit Singh, husband of the assessee while disposing of the appeals. It was urged that the assessee had 25% share in the property in dispute and once the department had accepted the valuation in the case of Paramjit Singh against which no appeal was filed, in such circumstances, the instant appeals were not maintainable. Support was drawn from judgment of the Apex Court in Berger Paints India Limited vs. CIT, Calcutta, (2004) 12 SCC 42 and judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jointly owned, the valuation in the case of one co-sharer should be followed in the case of other co-sharer unless different circumstances are demonstrated. Further, the Apex Court in Berger Paints India Limited's case (supra) while adjudicating identical issue held as under:- "12. In view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India vs.Kaunudini Narayan Dalal, (2001) 249 ITR 219, CIT vs. Narendra Doshi, (2002) 254 ITR 606 and CIT vs.Shivsagar Estate, (2002) 257 ITR 59, the principle established is that if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to challenge its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
