TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact, the burden was on the assessee to prove that what he receive was only ₹ 3 lakhs from the purchaser/partnership firm and not ₹ 15,34,500/-. This aspect of the matter having not been established by the assessee, we find that the Tribunal rightly affirmed the orders passed by the authorities below. Thus, adequate relief has been granted to the assessee by the Tribunal and there is nothing to interfere with such order - the substantial question of law is answered against the assessee - appeal dismissed. - T.C.A.Nos.982 & 1214 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2021 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP For Appellant in both T.C.As : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice and further, notices were issued but there was no response. However, on 27.03.1995 an authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the respondent and furnished a written submission stating that he was running a factory, by name, M/s.Heatex Equipments in Thiru.vi.ka Industrial Estate, Guindy with a land area of 5658 sq.ft. and the land and building was purchased by the assessee from the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited [SIDCO] on 08.03.1990 for a sum of ₹ 63,000/-. The said land and building have been sold to a partnership firm on 30.04.1990 for a sale consideration of ₹ 3 lakhs. The Assessing Officer found that the registering authorities have collected stamp duty and registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to on 07.11.2002. The assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal against both the orders. By order dated 20.06.2008, the appeal filed against the order of assessment was dismissed and the appeal filed against the penalty order was partly allowed and the penalty was reduced from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 10,000/-. This is how the assessee is before us by way of these appeals. 7. Four issues were raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, the sale consideration paid to the assessee was only ₹ 3 lakhs and the Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the said stand and not disbelieved the stand of the assessee merely on the ground that the purchaser had paid stamp duty for a value of ₹ 15,34,500/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. Therefore, we confirm such a finding concurrently rendered by the authorities and the Tribunal. 9. With regard to the second and third grounds are concerned, it may be true as a general proposition of law that the guideline value is not the sole basis to determine the value of a property. Undoubtedly, it is one of the factors which can be reckoned while determining the value of a property. To that extent, the legal position had been understood in a proper manner not only by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority but the assessee as well. We say so, because when the appeals were held by the CGT(A), the assessee filed a written submission along with the additional evidence. The additional evidence were to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 30% on the value of all taxable gifts and the Assessing Officer erroneously adopted the Schedule of rates given in Schedule I to the Act. Thus the valuation of the property was done in terms of the provisions of the Gift Tax Act and in the process of doing such evaluation, the Assessing Officer relied upon the registered sale deeds and the stamp duty which was paid on such instruments though the apparent sale consideration reflected in those documents were less. In any event, this being a question of fact, the burden was on the assessee to prove that what he receive was only ₹ 3 lakhs from the purchaser/partnership firm and not ₹ 15,34,500/-. This aspect of the matter having not been established by the assessee, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
