TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Raj. III, Jaipur dated 19-8-1994. 2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records. The revenue has raised the sole ground disputing the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) impugned order in accepting the returned value of land at Rs. 1,80,000 as against Rs. 24,00,000 estimated by Assessing Officer. The ld. DR of revenue has referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is situated in outer area of Hanumangarh, the exact location being Chak No. 51 NGC Khagra No. 121/257. He has contended that this land was agricultural land till valuation date and the department failed to bring material on record to prove that the land was other than agricultural. He has contended that the assessee applied for change of use of the land whereupon patta for the same was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (1) 192 ITR 310 (Delhi) and (2) 147 ITR 657 (P H). He has contended that the department is relying on plot of 10 15 ft (P. 11 P.B). He has also placed reliance on the following citations :- (3) 113 ITR 277 (Guj.) (4) 161 CTR 135 (All.) 4. We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. In 147 ITR 655 the Hon ble P H High Court has held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find the valuation adopted by Assessing Officer to be not justified and in turn the value directed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to be adopted as declared by assessee to be quite proper and not laconic. 5. We therefore, find no fault with the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), we decline to interfere with the impugned order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on this count. 6. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
