TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was not an agriculture land. HELD THAT:- The assessee except making the above assertions that the land sold by the assessee was in a better position, not produced any evidence before the Lower Authorities to prove that the Assessee s land that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had decided the fair market and no specific difference has been pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of any material to prove that the land of the assessee and the land for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the fair market value at Rs. 50,000/- per Bigha are different and in the absence of any supporting evidence in support of the contention of the assessee, we find no error or infirmity in the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in not determining Fair Market Value of the land as on 01.04.1981 in accordance with evolved principles for the valuation. 4. That the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 28892596/- as LTCG by adopting market value of land under consideration as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of Supreme Court decision pertaining to land in the village of Shahibabad Daulatpur in North West Delhi whereas the land sold by the appellant was located in the Village of Daulatpur, Teh: Kapashera, Distt: South West Delhi. That the distance between the two lands was about 38 Kms, land of the appellant was better located and they were not at all comparable in value. The Ld. AO and CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Geeta alongwith others namely Smt. Sushila, Smt. Sumitra, Sh. Shamsher all children of Late Sh. Khemchand and Smt. Bharpai w/o Late Sh. Khem Chand, had sold land 16 Bigha 7 Biswa 10 Biswansi situated in the revenue estate of Village Daulatpur, New Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,21,51,042/- to IOCL Officers Welfare Society, Delhi. The sale amount of Rs. 3,04,30,208/-in respect of 20% share as per the sale deed of the land was received by the assessee. The assessee had claimed this amount of Rs. 3,04,30,208/- as agricultural income in the Income Tax Return filed for the year under consideration. The Counsel of the assessee explained that the land in consideration was sold at Village Daulatpur, New Delhi to a Group Housing Socie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not furnished any satisfactory explanation / documents/justification. The onus to prove the genuineness of each and every entry recorded in the books of assessee lies with the assessee. The assessee has failed to discharge her onus. Thus, in absence of any explanation/documents/justification and in view of the discussion held above, an amount of Rs. 2,88,92,596/- as computed above is chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee under the head income from Long Term Capital Gain on the sale proceeds of the land situated at Vill. Daulatpur received by her as per her share and is added to the taxable income of assessee. (Addition: Rs. 2,88,92,596/-) 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/12/2106, the assessee preferred an Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sold by the appellant was better located. However, in-spite of specific query being raised by me regarding the difference in the location of the appellant's land and the land for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the fair market value @ 50,000/- per bigha, no specific difference was pointed out by the appellant. The appellant did not furnish the details of distance between the land sold by the appellant and the land referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid order. As such the contentions of the appellant are without any supporting evidence and are therefore held to be mere self serving statements. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the A.O was fully justified in adopting the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee except making the above assertions that the land sold by the assessee was in a better position, not produced any evidence before the Lower Authorities to prove that the Assessee s land that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had decided the fair market and no specific difference has been pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of any material to prove that the land of the assessee and the land for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the fair market value at Rs. 50,000/- per Bigha are different and in the absence of any supporting evidence in support of the contention of the assessee, we find no error or infirmity in the orders of the Lower Authorities in adopting fair market value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
