TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (11) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Devanga High School Road, Coimbatore. In the cases of both Chinnaswamy and Kulandaivel, there was an Inspector's report on the basis of which the aggregate value of the property was taken at Rs. 16,65,801or the 1/3rd share came to Rs. 5,55,267. Chinnaswamy and Kulandaivel both preferred appeals and in one case the A.A.C. and in the other case the C.I.T. (A) stated that a value of Rs. 5,000 per cent should be taken and this gave an effective value of Rs. 5,18,734 as the 1/3rd share which would have given an aggregate value of Rs. 15,56,202. Neither Chinnaswamy nor Kulandaivel preferred further appeals. 3. In the assessee's case, for the assessment year 1982-83, the 1/3rd share was taken at Rs. 5,55,267 and this value was repeated for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of the other co-owners for the property, if there were special circumstances, a deviation would be warranted. In the present case, he submitted that a deviation was warranted because in the case of neither of the other co-owners the factum of sale of partition had been adverted to and discussed, (b) The other co-owners were not interested in pursuing the neater further because part of the property had been sold, namely, 1 acre 10 cents subsequently and whatever remained of 72 cents was allotted to the assessee. Since in the assessee's case it would be a recurring matter, the assessee was compelled to come up in appeal, (c) Adverting to the portion sold of 1 acre 10 cents which was for an aggregate value of Rs. 5,50,000, 1/3rd value th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dated 15-6-1989 and it was not known whether the Revenue had still accepted the same or not. In any view of the matter, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that there was no warrant for deviating from the value fixed in the case of the other co-owners which came to Rs. 5,18,734 for the 1/3rd share. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We are in complete agreement with the learned Departmental Representative that normally the value taken in respect of a property in the case of one co-owner should be taken as the value in the case of the other co-owners. But this is not an inflexible rule, and, where cogent material is let in to show that there are relevant, and compelling materials which were not perhaps put forth, ....