ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dt. 16th proposing to raise following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the action on the part of the respondent authority to pass the ex parte order without giving any proper opportunity of personal hearing and thus in violation of principles of natural justice, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of learned below authorities in applying the 5,050 per marla is legally sustainable in the eyes of law -
(2.) THE assessee filed his return as individual of the asst. yr. 1999 -2000. Since compensation received in lieu of acquisition of land, which was taxable as long -term capital gain was not declared, reassessment notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and reassessment was made accordingly, which has been affirmed by the CIT(A) as was determined by the AO at Rs. 114 per marla taking into account 26 sale instances. The assessee did not lead any evidence nor disclosed the rate at which he acquired this property either before the AO or before the appellate authorities.
(3.) IN absence of the assessee having lent any evidence, the rate determined by the AO as affirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. The rates suggested in the questions of law on the basis of auction bid in auction conducted by the Improvement Trust cannot be held to be comparable, as it is not the case of the assessee that he had purchased the property in auction. Auction of Improvement Trust normally relates to developed land and its comparability depends on the nature of the land of the assessee. The rate of auction of the Improvement Trust is not shown to have been pleaded before the assessing authority. In above circumstances, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration.;