9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (OPEN COURT) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 08.08.2013 in ITA No. 1911/Del/2012 and 2340/Del/2012 and other connected appeals. The question of law urged is: "Whether the ITAT fell into error in upholding the assessee's contention that the value determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of the property was unsustainable". 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt Payee cheque dated 06.09.1989. A compromise application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved and the statement of parties was recorded. Sh. Gurdayal Singh died on 13.12.1994 and the original owner of the property Sh.Tarsem Singh died on 13.08.1996. This, however, did not resolve the entire issue because some dispute between the LRs of Tarsem Singh broke out. By that time agreement to sell had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e property was decided to be Rs.2,75,25,780/-. After adjusting the sum of Rs.35 lakhs, the AO brought to tax the balance amount and determined the tax liability of Rs.60,06,445/-. 4. The assessee's appeal was apparently accepted and the CIT (Appeals) directed that instead of market value indicated by the DVO, the circle rate was to be looked into. This decision was appealed against by both the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en though he continued to be in the possession of the property. It is matter of fact that original owner Sh.Tarsem Singh died in 1996; Sh.Gurdayal Singh, his agent/guardian died in 1994. After his death, the LRs continued to contest the title and eventually the purchaser agreed to pay a further amount of Rs.35 lakhs. The ITAT took note of several decisions, including CIT vs. Naveen Gera 2010 328 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the court in the year 1989, ifso facto, could not have been the ground for suspecting its bonafide. Given the fact that an order XXII Rule 3 CPC application was filed and the compromise duly recorded in the Court, we are of the opinion that the ITAT's order does not lead to any substantial question of law requiring consideration. 8. The appeal and the pending application are accordingly dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
