The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Nagpur v. Laxmansingh T. Bhonsale (Huf

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.47/2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Nagpur ...Versus...Laxmansingh T. Bhonsale (HUF) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for appellant S/Shri C.J./S.C. Thakar, Advs. for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.DATE: 10.10.2013 By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 9.11.2012, partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent – assessee and holding that the land value, as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of working out the long term capital gain was Rs.110/- per sq. ft. The Tribunal also held that the indexation could not have been made from 28.4.1995 and the assessee was successful in proving that the same could be made from 1.4.1981. While holding so, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in holding that the land value was Rs.80/- per sq. ft. as on 1.4.1981. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it appears that the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and the findings in regard to the land value as also the date of indexation are pure findings of facts. While holding that the land value in 1981 was Rs.110/- per sq. ft., the Tribunal considered the valuation report, the sale instances, the location of the land of the assessee and several other material tendered by the parties on record. The findings in regard to the land value as well as the fixation of the date of indexation are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Income Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar