JUDGMENT
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the IT department. The assessment year involved is 1997-98.
2. For the purpose of computing the cost of acquisition for calculating capital gain, the department was required to assess the fair market value of the land in question as on 1-4-1981.
The appellant claimed the value to be Rs. 80 per sq. ft. The impugned order has confirmed the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) at Rs. 40 per sq. ft. Detailed reasons have been mentioned in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as of the Tribunal.
The report of registered valuer relied upon by the appellant was rejected as it was an opinion without reasons. Apparently, the land was purchased in the year 1976 at Rs. 1.86 per sq. ft. In five year's time upto 1981, the appellant claimed that the value increased from Rs. 1.86 to Rs. 80 per sq. ft. The impugned order places the rise at Rs. 40 per sq. ft.
3. The Tribunal also notes that for the next ten years i.e. From 1981 to 1991, the value goes only upto Rs. 125 per sq. ft. It further notes that from 1991 to 1999 i.e. a period of eight years, the value went up from Rs. 125 to Rs. 250 only.
4. The ground raised in support of this appeal is that the impugned orders have failed to consider that the rise in value of properties after 1981 was adversely affected because of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which took (place) in 1984. It has also been submitted that the orders have also failed to take into account the facts mentioned by the appellant about the development of the surrounding area by construction of the Chief Minister's bungalow in 1977-78 and construction of two five star hotels namely Jahanuma Palace Hotel and Ashoka Hotel, which were commissioned in 1981 and 1982. According to the appellant, these development activities resulted in rapid rise in the value of the properties between 1976 to 1981. It may be pointed out here that while it was open to the appellant to submit some examples of a period during or shorting after the department (sic), to indicate the quantum of rise as a result of these alleged developments of surrounding areas but no such attempt has been made. Thus, the reliance upon circumstances of development appears to be rather vague and lacks consequential material. If evidence which could have been produced conveniently has not been produced, normal inference in absence of explanation for non-production would be that if produced the said evidence may not have favoured the party which has failed to produce the same.
5. Essentially, the assessment as to what would be the value in the year 1981 is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the facts, circumstances and materials available. A rise from Rs. 1.86 in 1978 to Rs. 40 in 1981 i.e. in five year's time would be an increase of more than twenty times.
6. From the appellant's side, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao v. Jt. CIT , has been relied upon. In our opinion, the decision has no application because that was a case where a non-speaking order has been passed by the High Court. In this case, the Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority, both have passed speaking orders containing detailed reasons.
7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the rejection by the impugned orders of the appellant's contention that the rise during the five year period was more than 40 times, cannot said to raise any substantial question of law. The mere non-consideration of some bits of circumstances also would not raise any substantial question of law, unless perhaps where the evidence not considered is so vital as to make a substantial difference in the ultimate conclusion. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed.