TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfaction of the AO or to the satisfaction of the ld CWT(A) that what is canvassed by him is the fact and hence he upheld the action of the AO for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, respectively. Even before us also, the assessee has not placed any material in support of his contentions. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the ld.CWT(A), supra, and hence dismiss all these assessee s appeals. - W.T.A. Nos. 23 to 28/CHNY/2019 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 30-9-2019 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Ms. S. Vidya, CA Respondent by: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this property, as the said land had encroachments on it. Therefore, the banks / financial institutions refused to accept the property as a collateral security as it would not fetch the market value and the lenders may not be able to sell the impugned lands in the event of default by the assessee. Although, the assessee relied on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dr. A. Gomes vs. Fifth Wealth Tax Officer reported in 26 ITD 108, the AO without considering the submissions, straightaway adopted the circle rate available in www.tnreginet.net as the market value and assessed the value for each of the impugned assessment year. The AO has not done any verification nor referred to the valuation cell, therefore the value adopted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Bombay] and found that this decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee in as much as the facts are distinguishable. A reading of that decision shows that the AR of that assessee proved before the Tribunal that the subject properties were partially in possession of either cultivator or hutment dwellers and in support of this argument, the AR filed copies of 7112 extracts of sum of these lands. However, in this case, the AR did not prove with documentary evidences such an adverse possession. Hence, this assessee has not discharged the onus cast upon him by furnishing documentary proof in support of his claim that there is encroachment by hutment dwellers. Considering all these factors the ld.CWT(A) has correctly upheld the action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
