9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961. The admitted facts may be briefly noticed. On August 13, 1981, the factory building in dispute was sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,11,000 to S.K. Chaudhary and others--the partners of Bharat National Industrial Corporation, B-6, Mayapuri, Phase II, New Delhi. The proceedings under section 269C of the Act were initiated. However, it was found that the value of the property was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approached this court through the present appeal under section 269H of the Act. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the provisions of section 269C(2) of the Act. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the Revenue has been controverted by Mr. Pipat, learned counsel for the assessee. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Tribunal has accepted the assessment made by the approved valuer for the reason that it was supported by "comparable sale instances". Similarly, the value of the building was estimated by the official valuer at Rs.12,13,504. On this he had allowed a depreciation of Rs.4,64,165. Thus, the building was assessed at Rs.7,49,339. As against this, the valuer produced by the assessee had found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sread. The Tribunal, on consideration of the matter, has taken a possible view. It is not shown to be perverse or such as no reasonable person could have taken. Since the findings are based on consideration of the evidence, we find that there is no infirmity of law which may call for interference in this appeal. Another aspect of the matter which deserves notice is that it is the admitted posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
