9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of property under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, application of rental income method, rebuttal of presumption under s. 269C(2)(a), adequacy of evidence, relevance of property condition and sale reasons.
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act challenging the acquisition of a property in Kanpur. The property, comprising a building and a plot, was sold to different buyers at an alleged undervalued price. The competent authority initiated acquisition proceedings based on discrepancies in valuation and apparent consideration. The Valuation Officer estimated the property's value, leading to the acquisition order. Appeals were filed by the buyers, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the acquisition order. The first issue addressed was the valuation of the property, focusing on the rental income method applied by the Tribunal to determine fair market value for each portion sold. The Tribunal's valuation differed significantly from the competent authority's, leading to contrasting outcomes for the two portions. Regarding the portion purchased by Smt. Phoolmati, the Tribunal's valuation aligned closely with the apparent consideration, indicating no significant discrepancy. The Tribunal justified its valuation method by considering rental income and applying a multiplier, consistent with the property's rental potential. This approach was deemed legally permissible, and the Tribunal's decision to set aside the acquisition for this portion was upheld by the High Court. However, for the portion purchased by Asharfi Lal Gupta, the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 25%, triggering the application of s. 269C(2)(a) of the I.T. Act. The issue revolved around the rebuttal of the presumption of untrue statement in the sale deed due to the valuation difference. The High Court clarified that s. 269E(3) allowed for evidence to challenge this presumption, but emphasized the need for relevant and admissible evidence to support the claim. The High Court criticized the Tribunal's decision in Asharfi Lal Gupta's case, highlighting errors in considering irrelevant grounds and insufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. The Tribunal's reliance on property condition and sale reasons, which were deemed irrelevant to the valuation method employed, was found to be erroneous. The Court emphasized the importance of factual evidence and legal standards in rebutting statutory presumptions. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal in Asharfi Lal Gupta's case, setting aside the Tribunal's decision, while dismissing Smt. Phoolmati's appeal. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to legal standards and factual evidence in valuation disputes under the I.T. Act.
|
