9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed when we discussed the First Appellate Authority's order, it is specifically noticed that no evidence was produced with respect to the other lands;as to whether they are beyond the limit as prescribed in Explanation I or are occupied with buildings. No approval for such construction or licences for carrying on business of freezing units were produced by the assessee. In such circumstance, the Tribunal went wrong in finding that there was lack of clarity in the order of the lower authorities. In fact, the lower authorities did not say anything about the lands being occupied by buildings because the assessee did not produce any evidence to show that. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r lands the First Appellate Authority found that no details were furnished by the appellant to show that these are vacant urban land. In fact the specific contention taken by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority was that the lands were situated beyond the 8 Kms limit and also that the lands were occupied by freezer units and hence cannot be treated as a vacant land as provided under the Explanation to Section 2(ea). 3. The First Appellate Authority found, on the basis of the documents produced with respect to Chandigarh property, that it existed beyond the limit as provided in Explanation I. The value of the said land was directed to be excluded when assessment is carried out. With respect to the balance addition on the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were produced by the assessee. In such circumstance, the Tribunal went wrong in finding that there was lack of clarity in the order of the lower authorities. In fact, the lower authorities did not say anything about the lands being occupied by buildings because the assessee did not produce any evidence to show that. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse. The Tribunal ought not to have shifted the burden of proving that the lands were occupied with buildings, on to the shoulders of the Revenue. We see that there is no appearance before this Court and there is no production of any evidence with respect to lands, the value of which was added on, being occupied with buildings. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
