Sushil Kumar Aggarwal (HUF), Yamunanagar v. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 278/CHANDI/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 27821514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAJHA7919P
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 278/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Sushil Kumar Aggarwal (HUF), Yamunanagar
Respondent ITO, Yamunanagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-06-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 17-03-2011
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 276/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL (HUF) VS. THE ITO WARD- 4 YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AAJHA7919P ITA NO. 277/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL (HUF) VS. THE ITO WARD -4 YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AAJHA7918N & ITA NO. 278/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL (HUF) VS. THE ITO WAR D-4 YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AASHS5385J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOHAR LAL & SHRI MAHESH KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI BINOD KUMAR ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) KARNAL DATED 16.1.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 2 2. ALL THE THREE APPEALS RELATING TO THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT ON THE SAME ISSUE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSE D FOR BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. TH E FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL (HUF) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. 3. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE S IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 10/- PER SQ. YARD . 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING NIL INCOME PLUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2 00 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS O N SALE OF LAND AT NIL. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND MEASURING 0.62 ACRES IN VILLAGE DAMLA AT RS. 7 14 276/- AND ITS IN DEXED COST OF ACQUISITON WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 7 44 000/-. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL IN DIVIDUAL CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE THERE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL (HUF). WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS PHOTOCOPI ES OF THE LAND SALE DEED WERE FILED. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED OF THE LAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE LAND HAD BEEN SOLD AT A LOWER RATE THAN FIXED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY YAMUNANAGAR. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS THE VALUE OF LAN D SOLD IS TO BE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED AT VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFE R. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TABULATED THE AMOUNT MENTION ED IN THE DEED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES UNDER PARA 4 AT PAGE 1 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AMOUNTED T O RS. 90 34 650/-. THE 3 ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SALE OF LAND IS 1/9 TH AND COMES TO RS. 10 03 850/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 44 830/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 70 000/-. 5. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD C OMPUTED THE INDEXED COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 7 44 000 /- AND HAD ALSO CLAIMED TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS. 15 000/-. IN SUPPORT OF T HE ADOPTION OF THE LAND RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 VALUATION REPORT DATED 16.12.2 008 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE VALUER HAD ESTIMATED THE RATE OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 70/- PER SQ. YARD AND TOTAL VALUATION OF LAN D MEASURING 9034.77 SQUARE YARDS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 6 32 434/- IN W HICH SHRI MUNNI LAL HAD 1/3 RD SHARE. AFTER THE DEATH OF SHRI MUNNI LAL THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS SONS IN THE YEAR 1989-90 IN EQUA L SHARES I.E. 1/3 RD SHARE EACH. THE ASSESSEES 1/3 RD SHARE WORKS OUT TO RS. 2 10 666/- AND THE INDEXED COST WORKS OUT TO RS. 10 11 200/-. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE VALUER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR THE ADOPTION OF LAND RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD NOR ANY DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE RATE HAD BEEN FILED. THE VALUATION REPORT BEING INCOMPLETE UNRELIABLE AND NOT CORRECT WAS RE JECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN INCOMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T THE ASSESSEE HUF HAD ITSELF WORKED OUT THE INDEXED COST OF LAND AT R S. 7 44 000/- NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD BEEN COMP UTED AT RS. 2 44 828/-; HOWEVER AS PER VALUATION REPORT THE INDEXED COST O F LAND WORKS OUT TO RS. 10 11 200/-. THE INDEXED COST OF LAND AS PER THE R ETURN AND AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT BEING AT VARIANCE WERE REJECTED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED THE SUB REGISTRAR JAGADHARI VIDE LET TER DATED 17.12.2008 TO 4 INTIMATE THE COLLECTOR RATE OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 OF VILLAGE DAMLA AND IF POSSIBLE PROVIDE SALES INDEX OF LAND DURING FINANC IAL YEAR 1980-81 AND 1981-82 OF VILLAGE DAMLA . THE SUB REGISTRAR JAGAD HRI FORWARDED COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 13.5.1981 BETWEEN SMT. PRA BHI WIDOW OF KALU S/O SHRI SHANKAR OF VILLAGE MAUJA DAMLA SOLD TO SHR I GONDI RAM AND SHRI MUKANDI RAM SONS OF SHRI SHANKAR OF VILLAGE DA MLA. AS PER THIS SALE DEED LAND MEASURING 03 KANAL 19 MARLAS HAD BE EN SOLD FOR RS. 4 000/- ON 13.5.1981. ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE DE ED RATE OF LAND AS ON 13.5.1981 COMES TO RS.2/- PER SQ. YARDS. THE ASSESS EE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 BE NOT ADOPT ED AT THE RATE OF RS. 2/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 26.12.2008 IS INCORPORATED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN W HICH IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE RS. 2/- PER SQUARE YARD WAS ACTED UPON BECAUSE OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TH E PARTIES AND FOR PROVIDING MAINTENANCE AND GIVING SOME LOAN TO THE T RANSFERORS. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON ITS VALUATION REPORT AN D FURTHER FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE VALUER WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUC ED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH HE CERTIFIED THAT VALUAT ION OF LAND WAS ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRIES MADE FROM ELDERS IN THE AREA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 2/- PER SQUARE YARD AND THE INDEXED COST WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 29 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE NET L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 9 59 850/-. 7. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 9.6.1980 FOR LAND SOLD IN VILLAGE DAMLA AT R S. 41/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) WAS THAT SHORT TIME WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH THE SA ID EVIDENCE COULD NOT 5 BE FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DELAYED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN RESULTED IN COLLECTION AND CONFRONTATION OF EVIDENCE OF FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHORT T IME WAS ALLOWED WAS THUS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). FURTHER THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). THE APPLIC ATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE ENQUIRES FROM THE OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR JAGDHAR I WHO PROVIDED COPIES OF TWO SALE DEEDS AND THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS FURNISHED. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AT PAGES 8 & 9 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN THE REMAND REPORT IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR HAD SUPPLIED COPIES OF TWO SALE D EEDS I.E. ONE SALE DEED DATED 14.10.1981 FOR A PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 8 KAN ALS SOLD FOR RS. 30 000/- WHICH GIVES RATE OF RS. 6.20 PER SQUARE Y ARD AND SALE OF LAND BY ANOTHER SELLER FOR LAND MEASURING 5 KANALS 18 MARLA SOLD FOR RS. 30 000/- WHICH GAVE RATE OF RS. 8.40 PER SQUARE YARD. THE A SSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO THE SALE INSTANCE RELIED UPON BY THE AS SESSEE AS IT RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL PLOT MEASURING 13 MARLA WHICH WAS DEEP INSIDE THE VILLAGE DAMLA WHEREAS THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICU LTURE INCOME MEASURING 42 KANALS 4 MARLAS. THE ASSESSEE WAS CON FRONTED WITH THE REMAND REPORT ALONGWITH COPIES OF THE SALE DEED COL LECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT(A) ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 10/- PER SQUARE YARD AND DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 6 8. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE JOINT HOLDING OF 9034.47 SQUARE YARD OF LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E FOR RS. 7 14 276/- EACH (1/3 RD SHARE). AS PER LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THE SALE R ATE WAS @ RS. 350/- PER SQUARE YARD AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA D SHOWN THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE FORM OF SALE DEED DATED 9.6.2010 UNDER WHICH FARM LAND OF 45.375 SQUARE YARD WAS SOLD @ RS. 33/- PER SQUAR E YARD. THE LD. AR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE INDEXED COST WAS DECLARED AT RS. 7 44 000/- AS AGAI NST WHICH THE REGISTERED VALUER HAD COMPUTED THE VALUATION @ RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WORKS TO RS. 10 11 200/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS. 2/- P ER SQUARE YARD WHICH WAS INCREASED TO RS. 10/- PER SQUARE YARD BY THE CI T(A). RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DIFFERENT REGISTRIES OF LAND UNDER WH ICH PLOT OF LAND OF 45 SQUARE YARD WAS SOLD @ RS. 33/- PER SQUARE YARD AND ANOTHER LAND MEASURING 393 SQUARE YARD WAS SOLD @ RS. 41/- PER S QUARE YARD IN AND AROUND THE YEAR 1981. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED ON MAIN ROAD AND HENCE HI GHER SALE RATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SI TE MAP PLAN OF THE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED . THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) IN PARA 1.10. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SO LD PART OF HIS LAND HOLDING WITH HIS TWO BROTHERS AND THE SHARE OF EACH COMPANY-OWNER WAS DECLARED AT RS. 7 14 246/-. THE INDEXED COST OF AC QUISITION WAS DECLARED AT RS. 7 44 000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE CO-OWNERS AND 7 ACCORDINGLY CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF LAND WAS DE CLARED AT NIL. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ARE BEING ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF HUF. FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR INDIVIDUAL CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE FOUND IN THE ACCO UNT OF SUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL HUF. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCES OF DEPOSITS FURNISHED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SALE DEED OF THE L AND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN CHARGED ON A VALUATION FIXED BY STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE TOTAL SALE CON SIDERATION WAS FIXED AT RS. 90 34 650/-. THE SHARE OF THREE CO-OWNERS BEFO RE US WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 1/9 TH EACH AND CAME TO RS. 10 03 850/-. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN CHARGE OF THE THREE ASSESSEES BEFORE US ISSUED NOT ICE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2 44 830/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 70 000/-. IN THE SAID COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN REFLECTED AT RS. 10 03 828/- AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 1 55 000/- WAS INDEXED TO RS. 7 44 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED T RANSFER EXPENSES OF RS. 15 000/- AND DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 2 44 828/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED VALUATION R EPORT DATED 16.12.2008 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE VALUER ES TIMATED THE RATE OF LAND @ RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE COST OF THE LAND W AS THUS COMPUTED AT RS. 2 10 666/- AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS ABOUT RS. 10 11 200/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED A COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT AT PAGES 6 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON 1.4.2011. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID VALUATION REPORT REFLECTS NO BASIS FOR RATE OF LAND AT RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE VALUER HAD FURTHER FILED A CERTIF ICATE DATED 25.12.2008 IN WHICH HE CERTIFIES THAT THE LAND RATE QUOTED IN THE VALUATION REPORT WERE BASED ON ENQUIRIES DONE BY HIM PERSONALLY FROM SENI OR PERSONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE VALUER AS PE R HIS REPORT HAD VISITED THE SAID AREA ON 15.12.2008 AND HAD REPORTED THE LA ND RATES PREVALENT IN 8 THE YEAR 1981. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS REGARD IS THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER @ RS. 70/- PE R SQUARE YARD WAS REASONABLE AS THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A B IG PIECE OF LAND NEAR THE MAIN ROAD AND WOULD FETCH BETTER PRICE ON ACCOU NT OF ITS SUITABILITY FOR ESTABLISHING A FACTORY ON ACCOUNT OF LOGISTIC VALUE . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE SITE PLAN OF THE AREA TO PROVE THE EXISTE NCE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE MAIN ROAD. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE S UB-REGISTRAR JAGADHARI IN RESPECT OF THE RATE OF LAND AS ON 1. 4.1981 OF VILLAGE DAMLA. THE SUB-REGISTRAR JAGDHARI HAD FORWARDED A COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON13.5.1981 UNDER WHICH LAND MEASURING 3 K ANALS 19 MARLAS WAS SOLD FOR RS. 4000/- ON 13.5.1981. THE RATE OF LAND AS PER THE SAID SALE DEED WORKED TO RS. 2/- PER SQUARE YARD. PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED REFLECTS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WAS BETWEEN MEM BERS OF THE FAMILY AND WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN RELYING UPON THE SAID SALE DEED FOR ADOPTING THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1 981 AT RS. 2/- PER SQUARE YARD. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED COY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9.6.1980 FOR A PIECE OF LAND SOLD I N VILLAGE DAMLA. THE SAID EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SAME. THE SAID EVIDEN CE WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IN TURN MADE ENQUIRES FRO M THE OFFICE OF SUB- REGISTRAR JAGDHARI. THE COPIES OF THE TWO OTHER S ALE DEEDS WERE FORWARDED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR ONE DATED 14.10.198 1 FOR PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 8 KANALS SOLD FOR RS. 30 000/- AND ANOTHE R LAND MEASURING 5 KANALS 18 MARLAS SOLD FOR RS. 30 000/-. AS PER THE SAID SALE DEEDS THE RATE OF LAND WORKED TO RS. 6.20 / 8.40 PER SQUARE Y ARD RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE C IT(A) OBJECTED TO THE RELIANCE ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AS THE SAID SALE 9 DEED RELATING TO SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT MEASURING 13 MARLAS WHICH WAS DEEP INSIDE VILLAGE DAMLA. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HI S AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 42 KANALS 4 MARLAS. THE CIT(A) IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ADOPTED THE LAND RATE @ RS. 10/- PER SQUARE YARD AS ON 1.4.1981. THE COP IES OF THE SALE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 27 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FILED THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAID DEEDS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING HAVE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ANO THER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER WHICH AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 1. 5 MARLAS WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 500/- WHICH AS PER T HE ASSESSEE GAVE A SALE RATE OF RS. 33.05 PER SQUARE YARD. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON SERIES OF JUDGMENT FROM THE HON'BLE COURTS FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 11. WE MAY NOW REFER TO THE VARIOUS EVIDENCE FILED ON RECORD EITHER BY ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR IN DEPENDENT CLAIM/S OF ADOPTION OF RATE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. ADM ITTEDLY THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 4 2 KANAL 4 MARLAS. THE FIRST RELIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS IN WHICH RATE OF LAND HAS BEEN QUOTED AT RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE SAID ADOPTION OF RATE OF LAND AT RS. 70/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE VALUER AD MITS THAT THE SAID RATE WAS ADOPTED ON ENQUIRIES FROM THE SENIOR PERSONS O F THE LOCALITY. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. THE SECOND PIECE OF EVIDENCE REL IED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9.6.198 0 FURNISHED BY WAY OF 10 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE COST OF LAND AS PER THE SAID DEED WORKS OUT TO RS. 41/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE SALE DEED AT PAGES 10 & 11 IN WHICH IT IS REVEALED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IS FOR THE TRANSFER OF ONE KITA LAND OF HOUSE COMPOUND AREA MEASURING 13 MARLAS IN VILLAGE DAMLA AND IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BOUNDED BY HOUSE ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH/S SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE RELIANCE ON THE SAID PIECE OF EV IDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFYING THE RATE OF LAND TO BE ADOPTED WAS RS. 4 1/- PER SQUARE YARD IS MISPLACED AS THE NATURE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT IS A SETTLED PRACTICE THAT THE RATE OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA ARE ON A HIGHER SIDE BEING PART OF THE MAIN CITY / TOWN OR V ILLAGE AND RATES OF AGRICULTURE LAND ARE LOWER. WE FIND NO MERIT IN TH E STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND MAY BE COMPUTED BY TAKIN G RATE OF LAND AT RS. 41/- PER SQUARE YARD. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER FILED ANOTHER CERTIFIE D COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9.6.1980 BEFORE US ALONGWITH APPLICATIO N UNDER RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE. THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAID DEED IS ALSO ENCLOSED WHICH REVEALS THE SALE OF FARM LAND MEASURING 1 MARLAS IN VILLAGE DAMLA FOR A TO TAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1500/-. THE AREA OF THE SAID LAND IS NEGLIGIBL E WHEN COMPARED TO THE BIGGER PIECE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON A SALE TRANS ACTION OF 45.375 SQUARE YARDS OF PLOT OF LAND SOLD @ RS. 33/- PER SQUARE YA RD IN COMPARISON TO THE VALUE OF LAND MEASURING 9034.77 SQUARE YARD SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH H IS CO-OWNER WAS 44 KANALS 16 MARLAS AND 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE SAID LAND MEASURING 14 KANALS 19 MARLAS WAS EQUIVALENT TO 9034.177 SQUARE YARDS. TH E ABOVE SAID FACTUAL ASPECTS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER 11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 13. FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND WAS FORWARDED TO THE CIT(A). AS PER THE SAID TRANSACTION RATE/S OF LAND IN THE SAID PERIOD WORKS OUT TO RS. 6.20 / RS. 8.40 PER SQUARE YARD. THE CIT(A) HAS IN ALL FAIRNE SS ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 10/- PER SQUARE YARD. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN VIE W OF OUR OBSERVATION IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS EVIDENCE FORWARDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE EVIDENC E COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BOTH ASSE SSMENT AND REMAND. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE DISMISS THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE THREE CAPTIONED APPEALS. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N OS. 276 TO 278/CHD/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : JULY 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR