DAYA SINGH vs. C I T AND ANR.

The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 16.11.2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.245/ASR/2007, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the action on the part of the respondent authority to pass the ex parte order without giving any proper opportunity of personal hearing and thus in violation of principles of natural justice, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of learned below authorities in applying the sale rate of land as on 1.4.1981 @ Rs.114/- per marla as against normal sale rate ranging from Rs.3250/- to Rs.5333/- per marla without taking into account the certificate dated 11.11.2005 issued by the Executive Officer Improvement Trust Kapurthala, which prima facie clears that the highest bid in auction held on 4.11.1981 was Rs.5050/- marla is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?”

The assessee filed his return as individual of the assessment year 1999-2000. Since compensation received in lieu of acquisition of land, which was taxable as Long Term Capital Gain was not declared, re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and re-assessment was made accordingly, which has been affirmed by the CIT(Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The assessee failed to declare cost of acquisition of the land as on 1.4.1981 and the same was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.114/- per marla taking into account 26 sale instances. The assessee did not lead any evidence nor disclosed the rate at which he acquired this property either before the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authorities.

In absence of the assessee having lend any evidence, the rate determined by the Assessing Officer as affirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. The rates suggested in the questions of law on the basis of auction bid in auction conducted by the Improvement Trust cannot be held to be comparable, as it is not the case of the assessee that he had purchased the property in auction. Auction of Improvement Trust normally relates to developed land and its comparability depends on the nature of the land of the assessee. The rate of auction of the Improvement Trust is not shown to have been pleaded before the assessing authority.

In above circumstances, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 15, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3