IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 92 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-20, Appellant Mumbai Vs. Mr. Champallal M. Parikh Respondent Ms. R. Asokan, for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHKONI, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2008. PC :- 1. The main controversy in present appeal is whether the property was correctly valued by the Assessment Officer or not. Assessee was aggrieved by the order of the Assessment Officer. 2. The assessment was not accepted as the Assessment Officer himself conducted an inquiry, and according to the Tribunal, during his inquiry he relied on two sale instances of the same area in the same Society. The first sale instance was the sale of flat, executed in the year 1981 and the second sale instance was the sale-deed executed ten months thereafter. There was variation of almost hundred per cent between the first sale and the - 2 - second sale and the Assessment Officer took the average of the valuation of both the sale instances of the property. 3. The Tribunal did not rely on this and relied on the assessment made by the expert. Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. At the most it would be a re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. 4. In the result, appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]