9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons for initiating acquisition proceedings, the Competent Authority issued a notice under s. 269D(1) to the appellant to the effect that he had reason to believe that the apparent consideration of that land was less than its fair market value by more than 15 per cent of such apparent consideration of that land was less than its fair market value by more than 15 per cent o f such apparent consideration and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties had not been truly stated in the said Instrument of Transfer with the object of: (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the said Act, in respect of any income arising from the transfer and/or; (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any money or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purpose of the Indian It Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or the said Act, or the WT Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). The appellant filed its objections/replies on31st July, 1986,21st October, 1986and24th Nov., 1986. The appellant and submitted therein that the land in question was undeveloped raw-land in respect of which dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not those in which a lower or lowest rate had been given. Reliance in this connection, was placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohan Singh (1977) CTR (P H) 92 : (1978) 112 ITR 430 (P H). The Competent Authority observed that M/s Unitech Ltd. (SouthCity) were small colonisers as compared to the assessee and that they had purchased land in village Sukhrali at a higher rate (Rs. 98 per sq. Mtr.). The Competent Authority observed that the position of the appellant as a coloniser was similar to that of M/s DLF Universal Ltd. Who had planned 'Qutab Enclave' whereas the appellant had built a colony known as "Sushant Lok,' both the colonies being located atDelhi Meharuli Road, opposite to each other. However, he accepted the fact that M/s DLF Universal Ltd. Were old colonisers and that their land was slightly better in regard to location, etc., as compared to the land in question. He also accepted the appellant's contention regarding sale instances of Village Shahpur and Sarhol relied upon by the Valuation Officer and which formed part of the lay-out plan for 'Qutab Enclave.' Regarding the acquisition Notification, the Competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be available only after the fair market value was established. He submitted that the Valuation Report had been prepared by the Valuation Officer in haste without proper appraisal of the relevant facts and without application of mind as properly comparable cases of sale had not been taken into account by him. He reiterated the fact that the assessee was a coloniser in whose hands the land in question constituted its stock-in-trade and it could not be interested in understating the apparent consideration. He submitted that the 'Sarpanch' and village authorities were not examined by the Competent Authority inspite of a specific objection in that regard from the transferee. He submitted that the notice under s. 269D(1) was a cyclosyled one which did not show any application of mind and since the initiation of the acquisition proceedings was also not based upon proper materials, the same was invalid in law. Reliance in this connection was placed by him on the following decisions of the Tribunal: (1) Mathew M. Thomas vs. IAC (1982) 1 ITD 115 (Coch); Kartar Singh vs. IAC (1983) 5 ITD 75 (Asr); Major Tikka Khushwant Singh vs. IAC (1983) 6 ITD 667 (Chd); Smt. Darshan Kaur vs. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, he submitted that he exact market value was not required to be determined by the Department and that unlike under the WT Act, the report of the Valuation Officer was not binding but was only relevant in so far as it assisted the Competent Authority in arriving at the fair market value. Shri Durgesh Shankar further submitted that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings was quite valid. He submitted that colonisers were not a separate class of transferees and they were not excluded from the net of Chapter XXA. He pointed out hat in February, 1986 the position of DLF Plots as well as the land in question was the same and that subsequent developments could not be taken into consideration. He submitted that the own case of the assessee could not be relied upon in its support and that the sale instances of June, 1986 taken by the Valuation Officer were quite appropriate. Commenting on the so-called disadvantage, he supported the order of the Competent Authority and submitted that the absence of a regular approach road for the land in question was not material since all the adjoining lands had been acquired by the assessee. He also submitted that if the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority had to use the satisfaction in the language of the statute. The use of and/or in clause (a) is also not fatal. Therefore, this objection taken on the part of the transferee appellant does not assist it. We are, therefore, of the view that so far as the initiation of the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the transferee appellant has no case. So far as the availability of the presumption under s. 269C(2) are concerned, since we have the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Sutlej Chit Fund and Financiers P. Ltd. vs. CIT, the transferee appellant will not be able to dispute the proposition that the said presumption would be available even during the proceedings prior to the publication of the notice under s. 269D initiating proceedings for the acquisition of property. The material was already available on the record of the Competent Authority to form a belief that the consideration had been understated with the objects contained in cl.(a) or cl.(b). The initiation could not be said to have been done mechanically. Even though it was not for the Competent Authority to determine with precision the fair market value of the land in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproach road in respect of the land in question, the area around (excepting for small pockets still remaining with owners) had been acquired by the appellant and, therefore, really speaking, it could not be said that these lands were not approachable or accessible. The only thing was that for approaching the land in question, approach roads had been made by the Ansal Group of Colonisers. However, DLF Enclave Nos. 1, 2 3 etc., lying to an extent of 4 Kms., about on the main National Highway No. 8 bounded on one side of the triangle by the said Highway and on the other side by Delhi-Gurgaon Road whereas the land in question has to be reached by approach road which starts at some distance from the Maruti factory. The land in question is about 4 Kms. inside from that main road on which Maruti Factory is situated. In other words, there is main road along the main gate of Maruti factory and behind the Maruti factory is the National Highway No. 8 referred to above. In fact the road distance between the land in question and DLF Enclave is about 14-15 kms. May be that the air distance (i.e. as the crow flies) the distance between the DLF Enclave and the land in question is only about 3-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser 7.Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. . We agree with the Competent Authority that: (i) The agreement to sell not being registered, could not be given weight in view of s. 269F(9)(ii) The cases in which suits for recovery had been filed were different and that aspect is not very relevant for our purposes. (ii) The issue of notice under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in regard to certain cases is not relevant as the said notice is said to have been withdrawn on4th Nov., 1985, well before the sale deduction in favour of the transferee in question. (iii) The question of expenditure on development of the land is not directly relevant and does not assist the appellants. However, as already discussed above, we are of the view that even though the Competent Authority could be said to have reason to believe under-valuation for the purposes of initiation of the acquisition proceedings, he could not be said to have satisfaction in terms of s. 269F(6) that the fair market value of the land in question exceeded the apparent consideration thereof by more than 15 per cent of such apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
