The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair market value for inherited property under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the justification of the Tribunal's determination at Rs.5,000/- per cent.

R. Sudhakar, J.

1. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are filed at the instance of the assessee as against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12 raising the following substantial questions of law:

"a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in adopting fair market value at Rs.5,000/- per cent only on assumption and without evidence?

b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that there was no sale transaction nearer to assessee's property by not considering the documentary evidences produced by the assessee?"

2. The brief facts are as follows:

On 02.02.1981, the appellant – assessee inherited 51 cents of land situated at S.F.No.141 (Part) Palakkad – Pollachi Main Road, Kurichi Village, Coimbatore. On 16.09.2008, the appellant sold 20 cents of land out of 51 cents to one Hasan Kutty at the rate of Rs.3.75 lakhs per cent, totalling to Rs.75.00 lakhs. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income at Rs.9,70,480/- after making a claim of Rs.65,18,524/- as deduction against the column “Deduction 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/ 54GA of the Income Tax Act”. On 13.4.2010, again the appellant sold the remaining 30.72 cents to the same Hasan kutty at the rate of Rs.3.75 lakhs per cent, totalling to Rs.1,15,20,000/-. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,64,747/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.1,03,55,253/- and expenditure on transfer at Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assesee was asked to produce the copy of the sale deeds and evidence for claim of deduction of Rs.65,18,524/-. In response to the notice issued by the authority, the assessee produced a letter dated 14.10.2010 of the Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore showing the guideline value as of 01.04.1981 at Rs.300/- per cent for S.F.No.141/12. Time was given to the assessee for furnishing objections till 24.10.2011, since there was no objection or any evidence for the claim of deduction as above was filed.

4. Since the assessee did not file any objection, the Assessing Officer determined fair market value as per the guideline value as on 01.04.1981, namely, period of inheritance of the property by the assessee, at Rs.300/- per cent and allowed the deduction as therein.

5. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation of Long Term Capital Gains and evidence for claim of expenditure on transfer. The assessee had produced a copy of the computation statement, wherein the assessee had adopted the fair market value at Rs.47,410/- per cent as on 1.4.1981 for the calculation of the indexed cost of acquisition of the property sold. In support of this, the assessee furnished a copy of the document executed by one Mrs.Johara Banu in favour of Mr.R.Dhandabani in the District Registrar's Office at Coimbatore on 12.9.1983. The Assessing Officer after perusing the documents came to the conclusion that the document produced by the assessee for adopting the fair market value is in respect of the property situated in different locality. Hence, the Assessing Officer adopted the value of Rs.300/- per cent as per the details available in Sub-Registrar's record as on 1.4.1981, as against the value of Rs.47,410/- adopted by the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee produced a copy of the document showing the sale of property on 14.12.1984 in respect of S.F.No.165/1,Kuruchi Village. On consideration of the sale deeds, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for the assessment year 2009-10 held as follows:

"6.2. I have perused the submissions made by the appellant and the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has taken the guide line value as per the Sub-Registrar's office as t