1981 (10) TMI 78 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Aggregation of multiple transfers.
2. Validity of jurisdiction under Section 269D.
3. Basis for initiating proceedings under Section 269C.
4. Estimation of fair market value by the Valuation Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Aggregation of Multiple Transfers:
The transferees argued that there were 30 transfers in actuality, considering there were two transferors, five transferees, and three properties. They contended that the competent authority incorrectly aggregated these transfers into one. The competent authority considered all three immovable properties and the 30 transfers together as one transaction, which was disputed by the transferees. The department countered that the document evidenced only one transfer, and the properties were contiguous, forming one single property. The Tribunal agreed with the department, stating that the properties were transferred jointly without specific shares to the five persons.

2. Validity of Jurisdiction under Section 269D:
The transferees challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the competent authority under Section 269D, arguing that the conditions prescribed in Section 269C were not fully satisfied. They claimed that the competent authority relied on the presumptions in Section 269C without independent reason to believe that the sale consideration was understated with the object of tax evasion. The department argued that the competent authority based his action on the report of the Inspector, which indicated a disparity in values. The Tribunal found that the competent authority did not have valid jurisdiction, as there was no material evidence indicating that the consideration received was more than stated in the document.

3. Basis for Initiating Proceedings under Section 269C:
The transferees argued that the competent authority initiated proceedings based on presumptions under Section 269C without concrete evidence. The department claimed that the initiation was based on the Inspector's report, which suggested a prima facie case for action under Section 269C. The Tribunal held that the competent authority merely relied on the disparity between the fair market value and the stated consideration without any material evidence of understatement of consideration or tax evasion. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO, emphasizing that the onus of proving understatement lies with the revenue.

4. Estimation of Fair Market Value by the Valuation Officer:
The competent authority referred the matter to the valuation cell, which estimated the fair market value at Rs. 7,24,000 against the stated consideration of Rs. 2,45,000. The transferees contested the correctness of this valuation. The Tribunal noted that the valuation report was obtained after the initiation of proceedings and was not available at the time of issuing the notice under Section 269D. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the submissions regarding the fair market value estimation, as the competent authority lacked valid jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the competent authority did not have valid jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 269D, as the requirements of Section 269C were not fully satisfied. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the IAC (Aqn.) was canceled for lack of requisite jurisdiction.