Delhi High Court
Smt. Mohinder Jaspal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 August, 1991
Author: B Kirpal
Bench: B Kirpal, D Jain
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions :
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law, or acted without evidence or contrary to the evidence on record, in determining the value of the property known as "Narinder Place" (Jantar Mantar side)/(NDMC side) as on 1st Jan. 1954 at Rs. 1,23,240 ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the certificates of the brokers M/s R. Tuli Dalal & Shanti Swarup & Co., relied upon by the assessed in support of the valuation of the property as on 1st April, 1954 ?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not admitting evidence in the form of sale deeds of properties close to the vicinity of the property known as "Narinder Place"(Jantar Mantar side)/(NDMC side) adduced by the assessed at the time of the hearing ?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in ignoring the most important and relevant pieces of evidence in the form of sale deeds of comparable properties located in close vicinity of the property known as "Narinder Place" (Jantar Mantar side)/(NDMC side) which provided the best material for determining the market value of the property as on 1st January, 1954 ?
(5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in determining the fair market value of the property by adopting hypothetical methods of valuation, while ignoring the date which established the real market value ?
2. The aforesaid question are sought in respect of two asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. As is evident from the questions, they pertain to valuation of a property known as instances were produced before the Tribunal but it refused to accept the said evidence. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the Tribunal ignored the provisions of r. 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules which gives that Tribunal power to admit evidence for the first time.
3. The evidence which the petitioner wanted to be taken on record is the one which is referred to in question No. 4. The said evidence has been placed on record. In our opinion, the same has title or no relevance to the valuation of the property in question as on 1st January, 1954. There are two types of properties in respect of which was sold in the year 1959 for about Rs. 15 lakhs. That cannot be a comparable instance in determining the value of "Narinder place" as on 1st January, 1954. The other categories of sale deeds which were sought to be relied upon pertained to the shops and flats in Block A, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The shops certainly were commercial in nature and the flats even if they were residential, were at a different location than "Narinder Place". With this being the state of the evidence which is sought to be produced, there would be no useful purpose served in referring question No. 3 because ultimately the answer would be self-evident.
4. In our opinion, no question of law arises. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
