|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1426 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTAcquisition proceedings u/s 269C - held that:- Merely because the certificate under s. 230A of the Act was issued, it cannot be held that the option of the IT Department to compulsorily acquire this land stood foreclosed. Coming now to the argument about not giving opportunity to cross-examine the DVO, we have to consider as to what role the DVO has to play. According to s. 269C r/w s. 269F, the Valuation Officer is merely called upon to determine fair market value of a particular immovable property. He merely acts as an expert and adviser to the Competent Authority for the purpose of enabling such Competent Authority to determine fair market value of the property firstly at the stage of initiation of proceedings and finally at the time when he has to decide the question whether property has to be acquired under s. 269F. - no prejudice was caused to the assessee by mere fact that he could not cross-examine the DVO. Argument that valuation of the land in the hands of transferor Jai Marwar Company (P) Ltd., Jodhpur has been accepted by the IT Department, cannot be upheld because the Tribunal by its order dt. 8th Nov., 2002 has merely held the assessment order for asst. yr. 1985-86 as invalid on the ground that since sale deed was executed on 1st Feb., 1982, the capital gain can be assessed in asst. yr. 1982-83 and not in asst. yr. 1985-86. It is thus evident that the Tribunal without final determination of valuation of the land and the capital gain thereon, simply deleted such addition for the asst. yr. 1985-86. It cannot therefore be said to have given finality to valuation of land submitted by the transferor. Amount received as service charges - So far as assessee is concerned, said amount was receivable as service charges from construction company in question in the previous year relevant to assessment order under reference. - There is no reason to hold that it was not includible in assessee's income. The allowance or disallowance of the same in the hands of the payer is of no relevance in deciding the taxability of the same in the hands of the recipient. The present matter does not fall in any of five categories enumerated in para 52 above and, therefore, we answer all the four questions of law enumerated in para 6 of this judgment in affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|
