M/s Delhi Housing & Finance Corporation, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4733/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 473320114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U C DUBEY SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: BL JAI N
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 148; 154; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE-PRESIDENT AN D SHRI RAJPAL YADAV: HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.4917/DEL/2010 & 3324/DE L/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IT, VS. M/S. DELHI HOUSI NG & FINANCE CIRCLE 33(1), CORPORATION, 2 PARK VIEW, NEW DELHI. KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-05 (PAN: AAAFD1114C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 396/DEL/2010 ( IN ITA NO.4917/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S. DELHI HOUSING & FINANCE VS. ASSISTANT CIT, CORPORATION, 2 PARK VIEW, CIRCLE 33(1), KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-05 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAFD1114C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.4733/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S. DELHI HOUSING & FINANCE VS. ASSISTANT CIT, CORPORATION, 2 PARK VIEW, CIRCLE 33(1), KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-05 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAFD1114C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI UC DUBE Y, SENIOR DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BL JAI N, CA ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.08.2010 . THERE WERE CERTAIN 2 APPARENT MISTAKES, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RECTIFIED THOSE MISTAKES VIDE ORDER DATED IST APRIL 2011. THE REVEN UE HAS FILED APPEAL BEARING NO.4917/DEL/2010 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 30.0.2010. IT HAS FILED ONE MORE APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 3324/DEL/2011 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IST APRIL, 2011 WHICH HAS B EEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 READ WITH SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.4733/DEL/2010 AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 30.08.2010 WHICH IS A CROSS APPE AL. IT HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 396/DEL/2010 IN THE APPEAL OF R EVENUE I.E. ITA NO.4917/DEL/2010. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE BEARING ITA NO.3324/DEL/2011 IS CONCERNED, IT HAS TAKEN THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE BEING TAKEN IN ITA NO.4917/DEL/2010. GROUNDS ARE VE RBATIM SAME. IT HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE REVENUE H AS NOT EXPRESSED ITS GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, THEREFOR E, THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REJECTED. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, ITS CROSS-OBJECTION AND IN THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE INTER-CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER, THEREFORE, WE TAKE ALL THESE APPEALS TOGETHER. 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATES. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SEC. 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 15.7.2003 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.9,94,768. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC. 1 43(1) ON 22.8.2003. NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND AT RA DHEY SHYAM PARK AND RAJINDER NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA. NEW DELHI. HOWEVER, IN THE BALANCE SHEET, IT HAS NOT DEDUCTED STOCK IN TRADE. ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, SHRI RAVINDER KHULLAR, CA APPEARED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINA LLY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT. T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND SHRI YP RAWLA , CA APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER D IRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF OPENING AND CL OSING STOCK AS ON 15.12.2005. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WITH REGARD TO RADHEY SHYAM PARK, OPENING BALANCE OF STOCK WAS 23 SY. YD. WITH BOOK V ALUE OF RS.548. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ADDITIONAL LAND OF 520.33 SQ. YD. AT RADHEY SHYAM PARK WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR @ 1441 PER SQ. YD. THE SALE PROCEEDS 4 HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.7,49,390. WIT H REGARD TO RAJINDER NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE THAT OPENING STOCK OF 3585 SQ. YD. WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. OU T OF THIS, 382 SQ. YD. WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND THE BALANCE 3203 SQ. YD.S HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THIS LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS.1000 PER. SQ. YD. AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.3,82,000 HAVE DULY BEEN SHO WN. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT RADHEY SHYAM PARK AND RAJIN DER NAGAR ARE THE DEVELOPED AREA FROM THE LAST MORE THAN 40 YEARS. TH E RATES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MARKET RATE . HE DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR FOR ASCERTAINING THE MARKET RATE IN THE A REA. THE INSPECTOR HAD REPORTED THAT THE RATES PREVAILING IN THE AREA ARE IN BETWEEN RS.6,000 TO RS.7,000 PER SQ. YD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE RATES OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6000 PER SQ. YD. FOR ESTIMATI NG THE SALE PROCEEDS. HE ESTIMATED THE SALES VALUE OF RS.31,21,980 FOR RADHE Y SHYAM PARK AND RS.22,92,000 FOR RAJINDER NAGAR IND. AREA. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN AN ASSESSMENT ORDE R, PASSED ON 28.3.2006 UNDER SEC. 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. APART FROM THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS ALSO. DISSATISFIED WITH THESE ADDIT IONS, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE 5 MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING TH E RATES FOR THE SALE OF LAND AT RS.6,000 PER SY. YD. IN THE OPINION OF THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS), THE RATES OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.2500 PER SQ. YD. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ISSUED THE DIRECTIONS ACCORDINGLY VIDE HER ORDER DATED 4.1.200 7 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 64/2006-07. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.418/DEL/07 AND 1365/DEL/07. THEY HAVE AGITATED A LL THE DISPUTES FOR WHICH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHICH HAVE BEEN PARTLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE SALES PRICE OF THESE TWO PIECES OF LAND AT RADHEY SHYAM PARK AND RAHINDER NAGAR IND. A REA. THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT RECORDED I N PARAGRAPH NOS. 22 AND 23 READ AS UNDER: 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. 23. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT FAC TORS ONE THAT THE A.O. WHILE ESTIMATING THE SALE RATE HAS RELIED UPON THE INSPECTORS REPORT, WHICH WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. S ECOND, THE CIT(A) EVEN DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS OF THE NON-FURNISHING O F THE INSPECTORS 6 REPORT BY THE A.O. RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HI M, HE HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THIS OBJECTION. THIRD, THE TAX AUTHORIT IES BELOW EVEN DESPITE THE SALE INSTANCES BEING GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE ADJOINING AREAS TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE ESTIMATING THE SALE RATE BOTH OF THEM IGNORED THE SAME. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE ORDERS O F THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION RELATING TO THE S ALE OF PLOT AT RADHEY SHYAM PARK AND RAJINDER NAGAR IND. AREA SHOULD BE S ET-ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SALE INSTANCES AS WELL AS AFTER SUP PLYING THE INSPECTORS REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFTER A LLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE INSPECTOR IF D ESIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SURROUN DING CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SHOULD ESTIMATE THE SALE RATES OF THESE PLOTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN PURSUANCE OF THE ITATS ORDER, LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER HAS READJUDICATED THE ISSUE. HE HAS SUPPLIED THE INSPEC TORS REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE INSPECTOR FOR CR OSS-EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND PRODUCED SALE DEEDS OF T HE ADJOINING PLOTS IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS ITS CONTENTIONS THAT SALES MADE B Y IT ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RATES PREVALENT IN THE MARKET. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALES. ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH 7 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE AGAIN ADOPTED T HE RATES OF RS.6,000 PER SQ. YD. THE CALCULATIONS MADE BY HIM READ AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE SALE PRICE O F THE PLOTS IN QUESTION IS TAKEN TO BE RS.6,000 PER SQ. YD. ACCORD INGLY, THE SALE PRICE OF LAND AT RADHEY SHYAM PARK IS DETERMINED AT RS.31 ,21,980. (RS.6,000 X 520.33) AND AT RAJINDER NAGAR COLONY AT RS.23,93,000 (RS.6000X382) AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3 ) DATED 21.03.2006. 6. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IN PRINCIPLE, UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE RATE OF RS.6,000 PER SQ. YD. SHE OBSERVED THAT LOOKING INTO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A R ATE OF RS.2500 PER SQ. YD. BE ADOPTED AS SALE RATES FOR RAINDER NAGAR IND. AREA P LOTS AND A RATE OF RS.2900 PER SQ. YD. BE ADOPTED FOR RADHEY SHYAM PARK COLONY , WHILE WORKING OUT THE SALE PROCEEDS FOR THE SALE OF THESE TWO PIECES OF LAND. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL PLEADED THAT RATES DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE DEED CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED ON AN ESTIMA TE BASIS BY THE LEARNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT PRAYED THAT SALE PROCE EDS FOR RAJINDER NAGAR 8 IND. COLONY BE TAKEN AT RS.3,82,000 AND FOR RADHEY SHYAM PARK IT BE TAKEN AT RS.7,49,390. 8. THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND PLEADED THAT LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE RATES OF RS.6,000 PER SQ . YD. ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF TWO PIECES OF LAND. 9. IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION, ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED ITS STAND AS IS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPU GNING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ESTIMATE THE SALE PROCEEDS OTHER THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN T HE SALE DEED. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DI SCLOSED THE TRUE SALE PROCEEDS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAMJEET SINGH VS. ITO REPORTED IN 323 ITR 588. HE FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH PAGES 31 AND 85 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM, EXHIBITING THE AREA SO LD BY IT AT RADHEY SHYAM 9 PARK, RATES AT WHICH THE PLOT WAS SOLD, THE DETAILS OF SALE DEEDS OF ADJOINING AREA AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND THE RATES AT WHICH T HOSE ADJOINING AREAS WERE SOLD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE PREVAI LING CIRCLE RATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IN THAT AREA AT THE RELEVANT TIME. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE DETAILS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POI NTED OUT IN THE SAME COLONY TWO PIECES OF PLOTS MEASURING 111 YDS. AND 200 YDS . WERE SOLD ON 9.6.2004 AND 28.6.2004, THE RATE WAS RS.1845 PER SQ. YD. THE RATES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS IN THIS COLONY WAS RS.1408 PER SQ. YD. ON 16. 5.2002. RATE OF INDEPENDENT SALES IN THAT AREA WAS RS.1845 PER SQ. YD. THE CIRCLE RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WERE @ RS.1338 PER SQ. YD. THUS, THE RATES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SALES WERE BETTER THAN THE CIRCLE RATES AND NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS FAR AS RADHEY SHYAM PARK IS CONCERNED. WITH REGARD TO RAJINDER NA GAR IND. AREA, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT, RATES AVAILABLE IN INDEPENDENT SALE DEEDS IN THE AREA, IN BETWEEN 2000 TO 2004 WERE @ 744 PER SQ. YD. TO RS.909 PER SQ. YD. THE CIRCLE RATE AT TH AT POINT OF TIME WAS RS.1674 PER SQ. YD. IN 2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND ON 28.8.2002 @ RS.1000 PER SQ. YD. THE CIRCLE RATE ON THAT DAY WERE AT RS. 2508 PER SQ. YD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHE N THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SALE DEEDS OF ADJOINING AREA THEN ADDITION ON E STIMATE BASIS ON THE REPORT 10 OF AN INSPECTOR CANNOT BE MADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REBUTTING THE FACTS COLLECTED B Y THE INSPECTOR DEMONSTRATING THE RATES PREVAILING IN THE MARKET BU T ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBUT THOSE FACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY FOR MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUP PRESSED SALES IN ANY BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PO INT OUT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE. IT HAS SU PPRESSED THE FACTS. IT HAS SOLD THE GOODS AT A HIGHER RATE THEN THE ONE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEPUTED AN INSPECTOR TO FIND OUT THE EX ACT RATES PREVAILING IN THE AREA. THE INSPECTOR HAS REPORTED THE RATES FOR THE SALE OF LAND IN BETWEEN RS.6,000 TO RS.7,000 PER SQ. YDS. THIS REPORT WAS N OT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR LEARNED INSPECTOR WAS PUT TO CROSS EX AMINATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WH EN THE DISPUTE TRAVELED TO THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND. WE HAVE EXTRACTED T HE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE LIMITED ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY US IS TO FIND O UT THE MARKET RATES OF THESE PLOTS. IN THE LAST LINE OF PARAGRAPH 23, THE ITAT H AS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING 11 OFFICER WOULD CONSIDER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES FO R ESTIMATING THE SALES RATES FOR THESE PLOTS. ALL THE ARGUMENTS WHETHER AN Y ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISBELIEVING THE SALE DEEDS ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR TH IS ROUND OF LITIGATION. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS HOW TO QUALIFY THE SALE PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE INSPECTORS REPO RT IS CONCERNED, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS JUST EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION OF A P ERSON WHO HAS COLLECTED, ORAL AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF MARKET RATES AVAILABLE IN ANY AREA. NOW, THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS VERY WEAK T YPE OF EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATING, IT IS NOT WORTHY OF CRED ENCE, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TYPE OF OPINION, SALE VALUE OF ANY PLOT CANNOT BE DETERMINED. WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE ENDEAVOR OF THE INSPECTOR, HAD HE CO LLECTED THE SALE DEEDS OF THE ADJOINING PLOTS AT THAT POINT OF TIME. THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE INSPECTOR TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS OPINION. THERE ARE CE RTAIN FIXED NORMS FOR DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF A PARTICULAR PLOT, NO SUCH STEPS WERE TAKEN EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE INSPECTOR . THE ONLY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IS THE RATES NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT F OR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING OF STAMP DUTY. THESE ARE GUIDING FACTORS FOR ASCERT AINING THE SALE VALUE OF A PLOT. THESE RATES ARE NOTIFIED AFTER CONDUCTING DET AILED SURVEY THOUGH BY A DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES. THUS, THEY CARRY EVIDENTIARY VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ALSO IN SEC. 50C FOR COMPUTATION OF 12 CAPITAL GAINS. THE SALE DEEDS PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE OF 2004. IT HAS SOLD THE PLOTS IN 2002. IT FAILED TO PRODUCE SALE D EEDS OF ADJOINING AREA OF THE YEAR 2002. THUS, SALE DEEDS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALSO NOT A SOUND EVIDENCE FOR DEMONSTRATING THE ACTUAL RATES IN 2002 . FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE PUT RELIANCE ON THE CIRCLE RATES FOR ESTIMATING THE SALE VALUE OF THESE PLOTS. AS FAR AS RADHEY SHYAM PARK IS CONCERN ED, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT AT A RATE OF RS.1441 PER SQ. YD. THE CIRCLE RA TE AT THAT POINT OF TIME WAS RS.1338 PER SQ. YD. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE FOR THE SALE OF PLOTS AT RADHEY SHYAM PARK. AS FAR AS RAJINDER NAGAR IND. AREA IS CONCERNED, THE CIRCLE RATE WAS RS.2508 PER SQ. YD. AND ASSESSEE HA D SOLD @ RS.1,000 PER SQ. YD. CONSIDERING THESE ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE RATES O F THIS AREA AT RS.2500 PER SQ. YD. 12. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT IT IS QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS. THE ISSUE IN THAT CAS E WAS THAT AS PER SECTIONS 91 AND 92 OF EVIDENCE ACT, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A CONTRACT DULY REGISTERED CANNOT BE CHANGED BY ORAL EVIDENCE BY TH E PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE BOOK RES ULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE IS 13 ESTIMATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ASSESSING THE BUSINESS INCOME. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE RELEVANT, HAD ITS VENDEES WERE CHALLENGING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS O F THE SALE DEEDS? TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT APPEALS AS WELL AS CROSS OBJEC TION OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED PARTLY, WHEREAS APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DE VOID OF ANY MERIT. THESE ARE REJECTED. FOR THE CLARITY, WE MODI FY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE SALE VALUE OF THE PLOTS FOR RAJINDER NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA ONL Y AND HE WILL ADOPT A RATE OF RS.2500 PER SQ. YD. INSTEAD OF RS.1,000 PER SQ. YD. DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE QUANTIFYING THE SALE PROCEEDS. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.05.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) ( R AJPAL YADAV ) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/05/2012 MOHAN LAL 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR