Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J. - (1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the order of learned ITAT dated 01.06.2005, by which the appeal of respondent was allowed and appeal of appellant was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that assesseerespondent submitted Return of Income for the Assessment Year 1997 -98, and on scrutiny, Assessing Authority found that assessee sold land as per sale -deeds at a low price aggregated at Rs. 18.66 per sq.ft whereas rate was atleast Rs. 40 per sq.ft. and thus he added Rs. 17,14,418 in assessee's income on this count. Further, he disallowed depreciation of Rs. 5,86,344 on three tankers on the ground that these tankers were not given on lease and they were not put in use for that assessment year. On appeal, CIT (A) vide his order dated 15.09.2000 partly accepted appeal of the assessee, and assumed that land was sold at the rate of Rs. 22 per sq.ft. instead of Rs. 20 and thus deleted Rs. 14,99,345 as income from sale proceeds of land and further allowed full depreciation on tankers as claimed by the assessee. Assessee as well as revenue filed appeals against the order of CIT(A), and ITAT by its impugned order allowed appeals of assessee respondent and deleted addition of income on account of sale of land and dismissed the appeal of revenue -appellant. Appeal was admitted and following questions were framed: 1. Whether the finding reached by the Tribunal that apparent consideration shown by the assessee in transacting plots of land was not substantially less than market value, as noted in relevant material on record and based on conjectures and surmises vitiating conclusion? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the 3 Tankers purchased by the Assessee on 30th March 97 added before closing year were at all put to use before the closing of the Financial Year 1996 -97?
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.;