Where assessee had voluntarily given his consent to cost of land, assessee could not filed appeal against it under section 246A later on

FACTS of the case

■		The assessees were co-owners of an ancestral property. The land was sold by taking cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,70,000 per bigha.
■		The Assessing Officer found that the prescribed circle rate for agricultural land, as on 1-4-1981, in the area was ranging from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 8,000 per bigha. The amount is taken as Rs. 2,70,000 per bigha by the assessees as cost as on 1-1-1981.
■		The assessees gave their acceptance for applying the rates for cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 8000 per bigha. On the said basis, the rate was applied; the cost was worked out; and there is resultant assessment on the capital gains.
■		Later on, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner under section 246A.
■		The Commissioner took the view that there was no explanation for the delay and the assessees are not aggrieved persons. Even though the matter was carried before the Tribunal, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner. HELD in this case ■   The assessees had given, in writing, his consent to the cost of the land being Rs. 8000 per bigha, as on the relevant date, for the purpose of calculation of capital gains. This is not a case, which involved concession of law. It is a case, where pure question of fact as to what is the value of the land was involved. It is also relevant to notice that the assessee did not choose to make available any evidence in support of their contentions, which they seem to do now. [Para 15] ■   When an assessment is made on the basis of the consent of the parties, in view of the provision creating the right of appeal, namely, section246A, unless there is any grievance for the party as such that the concession was wrongly recorded or that he was coerced into making such concession, which case also the assessees do not have in these cases; the order of the appellate authority, as affirmed by the Tribunal, that the appellants cannot be treated as aggrieved persons is not liable to be interfered with. In such circumstances, the assessees have not made out a case for interference with the order of the Commissioner, as affirmed by the Tribunal. [Para 16] full judgment link