Daya Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.636 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Daya Singh Vs. -----Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the orderdated 16.11.2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000, passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITANo.245/ASR/2007, proposing to raise following substantial questionsof law:- “i) Whether the action on the part of the respondentauthority to pass the ex parte order without giving any proper opportunity of personal hearing and thus inviolation of principles of natural justice, is legallysustainable in the eyes of law? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase the action of learned below authorities in applyingthe sale rate of land as on 1.4.1981 @ Rs.114/- per marlaas against normal sale rate ranging from Rs.3250/- toRs.5333/- per marla without taking into account thecertificate dated 11.11.2005 issued by the ExecutiveOfficer Improvement Trust Kapurthala, which primafacie clears that the highest bid in auction held on4.11.1981 was Rs.5050/- marla is legally sustainable inthe eyes of law?” 2.The assessee filed his return as individual of the assessmentyear 1999-2000. Since compensation received in lieu of acquisition ofland, which was taxable as Long Term Capital Gain was not declared,re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to theassessee and re-assessment was made accordingly, which has beenaffirmed by the CIT(Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The assesseefailed to declare cost of acquisition of the land as on 1.4.1981 and thesame was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.114/- per marlataking into account 26 sale instances. The assessee did not lead anyevidence nor disclosed the rate at which he acquired this property eitherbefore the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authorities. 3.In absence of the assessee having lend any evidence, therate determined by the Assessing Officer as affirmed by the CIT(A) andthe Tribunal, cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. The ratessuggested in the questions of law on the basis of auction bid in auctionconducted by the Improvement Trust cannot be held to be comparable,as it is not the case of the assessee that he had purchased the propertyin auction. Auction of Improvement Trust normally relates todeveloped land and its comparability depends on the nature of the landof the assessee. The rate of auction of the Improvement Trust is notshown to have been pleaded before the assessing authority. 4.In above circumstances, we are unable to hold that anysubstantial question of law arises for consideration.5.Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge December 15, 2008‘gs’ (L.N.Mittal)Judge