9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding acquisition of immovable property transferred at an under-valuation. 2. Discrepancy in fair market value determination between the competent authority and the Tribunal. 3. Evaluation of the method used by the Tribunal for determining fair market value. 4. Legal principles governing valuation of property in the context of freehold and leasehold plots. 5. Consideration of irregularity and disadvantages in the plot affecting fair market value determination. 6. Question of law regarding whether all materials were considered by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the acquisition of a property transferred at an under-valuation. The property in question was a plot in New Delhi transferred for Rs. 49,000, with the competent authority determining the fair market value at Rs. 88,886, leading to the acquisition order under s. 269F. 2. The discrepancy in fair market value determination between the competent authority and the Tribunal was the crux of the issue. The Tribunal recalculated the fair market value at Rs. 112.50 per sq. yard, finding that the excess over the apparent consideration was not 15%, leading to the appeal challenging the correctness of the Tribunal's method. 3. The evaluation of the Tribunal's method for determining fair market value involved comparing the approaches of the competent authority and the Tribunal. The key differences lay in the additional amount for freehold status and the discount for plot disadvantages. The Tribunal's method resulted in a lower fair market value determination. 4. Legal principles governing the valuation of property, specifically freehold and leasehold plots, were scrutinized. The Tribunal's decision to enhance the price by 25% for freehold status, as opposed to the 40% by the competent authority, was deemed acceptable due to the absence of a definitive rule on the matter. 5. The consideration of irregularity and other disadvantages affecting the plot's fair market value was crucial. The Tribunal discounted the value by 1/3rd due to irregularities and other drawbacks, with the decision being upheld as a question of fact rather than a legal error. 6. The question of law revolved around whether all materials were considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision. The court held that the same material was reviewed, but differing conclusions were drawn based on the factors of freehold enhancement and plot disadvantages, which were factual determinations not subject to challenge on appeal. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings on facts, based on the specific circumstances of the case, were not open to challenge in the higher court.
|
