9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which discloses that the appellant is more than 77 years of age. Given the fact he has averred that he is not keeping well and want to bring the litigation to a final closure, we allow the application. The application is accordingly disposed of. I.T.A. No. 47/2003 3. By an order dated 14.10.2003 a Division Bench of this Court admitted theappeal and framed the following question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the actual sale consideration recorded in the agreement to sell of the asset and received by the assessee could be substituted by the value as adopted by the District Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the Act for the purpose of computing the capital gains chargeable to tax?" 4. In order to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee, was Rs 22,83,662/-. It seems that the Assessee had filed his reply to the said communication vide letter dated 05.03.2001. 6. The stand of the Revenue is that the Assessee was given several opportunities to produce the original allotment letters or any other evidence to establish the purchase of the said property, however, the Assessee submitted nothing except the Agreement to Sell. The learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that the Assessee was given full opportunity to file his objections to the valuation arrived at by the DVO. 7. We find that a Division Bench of this Court 27.8.2008 in the case CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh, [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) dated 27.08.2008 in ITA No. 154/2008 has held that provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 wherein the expression "full value of consideration" was interpreted in the context of pari materia provisions found in the Income Tax Act, 1922. Based on these decisions the Division Bench concluded that for the purpose of computing "capital gains" there is no necessity for computing the "fair market value" and, therefore the Assessing Officer could not have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer. 8. Before us the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this was a case where the Assessee had not supplied documents, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of the Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) was not applicable. We are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
