2006 (10) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai bearing R. S. Nos. 4291/1 and 4294/1 to the extent of 43 grounds and 845 sq.ft. The assessee had 9/16ths share and the sale consideration received to the extent of her share was Rs. 6,85,28,195 during the relevant assessment year. For capital gain purposes, the assessee has taken the value of the property as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 2,86,000 per ground based on the report of the valuer, but the Assessing Officer, based on the wealth- tax assessment of one of the co-owners for the year 1992-93, wherein the neighbouring property was valued at Rs. 60,000 considered the value of the property sold as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 70,000 per ground as fair and reasonable and accordingly, he computed the long-term capital....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Department\qs appeal without going into the merits of the case ?" 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue without going into the merits of the case, merely on the basis of the co-owner\qs case being dropped ; and that the registered valuer had taken a sale of \xba ground of land in 1995 and worked backwards, whereas the Assessing Officer had taken the value shown by one of the co- owners in respect of the neighbouring land, and therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer needs to be restored. 7. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to adopt the value of the land disclosed ....