9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 250. At the very outset, the Authorised Representative for the assessee contended before us that Tribunal had consistently taken a view that the fair market price disclosed in form No. 37G filled before the Registration Officer was not the fair market value and as such, the same could not be said to be the admission of the assessee and read against him. The Authorised Representative for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport of his contention he has placed reliance on the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, particularly that in the case of Dr. Mushter Shahnaz Suri. The Tribunal in the aforesaid decision, in the similar circumstances, has held that the value disclosed by the vendor/vendee at the time of sale in form No. 37G is not the fair market value. We, therefore, fully agree with the submission of the Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 55,000. On appeal, it was contended that the estimate of investment at Rs. 55,000 was excessive. The AAC after considering the contention of the assessee, held as under; "In the immediately preceding assessment year the investment was shown at Rs, 27,100, which was enhanced to Rs. 35,000. The AAC had reduced the same to Rs. 30,000. Appellant's contention has been examined. After taking into acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the matter was called for. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties. In the immediately preceding year, the assessee had shown investment at Rs. 27,100 which was enhanced by the ITO to Rs. 35,000 but in appeal it was restricted to Rs. 30,000 and no further appeal was preferred by the assessee. It is clear from the record that the assessee did not furnish details in regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
