TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned, it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution, vide Jaswant Rai v. CWT [ 1977 (2) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] . Applying the ratio laid down in Jaswant Rai v. CWT, to the facts of the case on hand would lead to the firm conclusion that the assessee, who is also a co-owner of the property, is entitled to the benefit enjoyed by the other co-owner, whose valuation of the same property, at the same rate as that of the assessee, was accepted by the CIT and recorded in the order under appeal by the Tribunal. Finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 2,86,000. 4. Exasperated by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking note of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, with respect to a co-owner of the land, dropping the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and accepting the value adopted at Rs. 2,86,000 per ground as on April 1, 1981, while arriving at the capital gains assessable for the year 1995-96 ; and the ratio laid down in Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 (P H) that differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of the same property or while valuing the same property, held that the value of the land taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re- over, no reason has been attributed against the assessee by the Assessing Officer, for not accepting the value adopted by the assessee, based on the report of an approved valuer. 8. That apart, the Tribunal, while passing the order under appeal, had also taken into consideration the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, in and by which, the proposal to revise the assessment in the case of the other co-owner was dropped, finding that there was no justification to reject the value adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the light of the decision in Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477, held that differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
