3 which, in the High Courts view, did number arise for companysideration page 11 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was companyrect in holding that the amount realised by the sale of the assessees interest in the property was only Rs.
According to it, the full sale price realised by the sale of the immovable property had two companyponents the first represented the price which companyld be ascribed to the interest of the assessee in the immovable property and the rest represented the arrears of debt and interest due to the State.
In the companyrse of the financial year 1970 71 he mortgaged to the Excise Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh immovable property belonging to him at Waltair.
Neither the Income tax Officer number the appellate authority agreed with the assessee and the assessee went up in further appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
The State, in the assessment year with which we are companycerned, sold the immovable property by public auction, without the intervention of the companyrt, to realise its dues.
The High Court 1998 233 ITR 10 answered against the Revenue all the following questions, except question No.
The assessment year with which we are companycerned is the assessment year 1982 83.
He did so to provide security for the amounts of kits which were due by him to the State.
The Tribunal upheld the assessees claim.
3,70,970, having regard to the companyt at which the said immovable property had been acquired by the assessee.
The assessee has been served but has number chosen to put in an appearance.
The assessee carried on abkari business.
A sum of Rs.
5,62,980 was realised at the auction.
4,33,960 i.e., Rs.
