1987 (7) TMI 147 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Competent Authority under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961 acquiring a property.
2. Preliminary objection raised regarding the limitation period for filing the appeal.
3. Discrepancy in the valuation of the property by the Govt. Valuation Officer and a registered valuer.
4. Consideration of the presence of a tenant affecting the market value of the property.
5. Comparison of sale transactions relied upon by the Govt. Valuation Officer with the subject property.
6. Determining the fair market value of the property based on comparable sales and locality.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Competent Authority acquiring a property under Chapter XXA of the IT Act, 1961. The transferee and transferor challenged the order before the Tribunal.

2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the limitation period for filing the appeal. The appeal by the transferee was challenged as being out of time. However, affidavits were presented to prove that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame, and the Tribunal found no delay in filing the appeal.

3. The valuation of the property was disputed between the Govt. Valuation Officer and a registered valuer. The Competent Authority had valued the property at Rs. 8,47,000, while the registered valuer estimated it at Rs. 5,59,500. The presence of a tenant in the property was argued to affect its market value.

4. The presence of a tenant in the property was emphasized as a factor affecting its market value. The Competent Authority's finding that there was no evidence of tenancy was challenged based on the sale deed and the registered valuer's report, which clearly indicated tenancy rights.

5. The comparison of sale transactions relied upon by the Govt. Valuation Officer was contested. The appellants argued that the sale transactions were not comparable due to differences in area, location, and timing, especially considering the political situation in Punjab and Chandigarh at the time.

6. The Tribunal considered the discrepancies in the Competent Authority's findings and the sale transactions relied upon. It was concluded that the apparent consideration was the real consideration, and there was no understatement to trigger the provisions of Chapter XXA of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the order of the Competent Authority, and the appeals were allowed.