9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t consideration by more than 25 per cent. So, the Competent Authority started proceedings under s. 269D. Notices under s. 269D(1) were published, and they were duly served on the transferor and transferee, as required under s. 269D (1) and 269D(2) of the Act. 4. The transferee, in the pursuance of the service of the notice, filed objections as under: (a) That the rates of the land measuring 1000 sq., yds., purchased at Rs. 33,000 i.e. Rs. 30 per sq., yd., is quiet reasonable. The agreement to purchase the land had been entered earlier and there is clear endorsement of the seller on the enclosed sale deed that Rs. 23,000 was taken earlier and Rs. 10,000 was paid through cheque No. 20657 dt 28th Aug., 1974. I am also submitting certified copies of sale deeds of plot No. 8 in favour of Maharaja Shri Surinder Pal in the same scheme with pucca well and boundary walls which was sold @ Rs. 20 per sq., yd., plot No. 7 in favour of Shri Mohanlal Rathi in the same scheme was sold @ Rs. 20 per sq., yd., and plot No. 3 in favour of Shri Yatinder Singh in the scheme for your perusal. Thus, it is clear that I have paid Rs. 13 in excess compared to the adjoining two plots. (b) That the situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reality, its value, on the relevant date, was not more than Rs. 33,000 for which the property was sold. The transferor entered into agreement with the transferee on 20th April, 1972, and, according to the terms of the agreement, the property was to be sold for Rs. 33,000. In pursuance of the agreement, the sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the transferor on 28th Aug., 1974 through cheque No. 20657, and the remaining consideration was paid, at the time of registration of the sale deed. The said transfer is bona fide, and the agreement to sell, took place in 1972, when it was not anticipated that the value of the land in coming years may be more. The said land was purchased by the transferee @ Rs. 33 per sq., yd. The said rate is quite reasonable. It was further submitted that the transferor also sold plot No. 8 which is quite near the plot in question, in favour of Maharaja Shri Surinder Pal in the said scheme with pucca well and boundary walls. This plot was sold @ Rs. 20 per sq., yd. Similarly, plot No. 7 was sold by the transferor in favour of Shri Mohanlal Rathi in the same locality @ Rs. 20 per sq. yd. It was also contended that the transferor also sold plot No. 3 in favour of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y failed to being on record sufficient material for acquiring the property under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act. The ld., counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel (1), and CIT vs. Dr. V.K. Bhaskaran Nair Anr.(2) 7. The ld. Deptl. Representative supported the order of the Competent Authority. The Valuation Officer was also heard. It was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the Valuation Officer has determined the fair market value of the property, on the basis of the auctions made by the Urban Improvement Trust, at the relevant time. Those plots are situated near to the plot in questions. According to the Revenue, the Urban Improvement Trust made the regulations. Such auctions are reliable and should be believed as compared to individual sale deeds, on which the transferee is heavily relying. It was further contended that the Competent Authority has considered the objections of the transferee. According to the Revenue, in the absence of any other evidence on record, the Competent Authority was quite correct in coming to the conclusion that the fair market value of the property, on the date of the transfer, was not less than Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accept the so-called fair valuation by the Valuation Officer. In cases where the competent authority is not prepared to place the Valuation Officer before the Tribunal for the purpose of substantiating his valuation which is styled as the fair market value of the property, it can be presumed that his evidence would not have supported his valuation. References may be made to the ratio of decision in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.K. Bhaskaran Nair. 10. In the present case, the Valuation Officer mainly relied on the auctions which took place in Sept., or Oct., 1974 under the supervision of some official of the Urban Improvement Trust. The Valuation Officer has given details of such auctions. The copy of same is on the paper book. A perusal of the statement would go to show that the plots hold in auction were of 333 to 150 sq., yds., plot Nor.B-3 measuring 333.33 sq., yds., was auctioned on 13th Oct., 1974 and it was finally purchased by the party concerned @ Rs. 74.50 per sq., yd. Some of the plots were purchased @ Rs. 74. Rs. 80, Rs. 76 and Rs. 85 per sq., yd. From the statement and the Valuation Report, it is clear that these plots are situated near to Geejgarh House, Civil Lines, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the transferor to any other person. Had he sold this property to somebody else, in 1974, there may not be good buyers for the purchase of this property, because an agreement to sell the property had already been executed, and possession of the plot was already given to the transferee. This important circumstance was not considered by the learned Competent Authority. 11. We may also point out that the transferee has given reasons as to why the plots of Geejgarh House were not comparable with the plot in question. Those objections of the transferee were not property considered by the Competent Authority. The ld., Competent Authority only stated that the plots in dispute and the plots situated near Geejgarh House are in Civil Lines, Jaipur, and as such, there would be no difference in the valuation of such plots. Here also, the ld. Competent Authority was not correct in not property considering the objection of the transferee. In the objection, the transferee clearly stated that the plot in dispute is adjacent to the railway line and overhead bridge of Ajmer Road, where there is nuisance day and night on account of whistling of railway engines and regular motor and trucks traff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree were required to pay conversion charges, deduction for the same shall have to be made from this amount, as per actuals. It means that the Valuer himself accepted the position that the transferee may be required to pay conversion charges. The transferee had taken the stand that she had paid conversion charges @ Rs. 30 per sq., yd. In support of the contention, the ld. Counsel relied on the Notification issued by the Revenue Department on 14th Nov., 1973. The copy of the said Notification is on the paper book. According to this Notification, in the area in question, the conversion charges @ Rs. 30 per sq. yd. are to be paid. This circumstance also would be very material for determining the fair market value of the plot in question. The ld. Competent Authority stated that regarding the conversion charges, the transferee did not produce any convincing evidence. The transferee had filed copy of the Notification dt 14th Nov., 1973. It is an Official Record. The Competent Authority was supported to have knowledge of such Notification. Before the Tribunal, as stated above, copy of the said Notification had been filed. On behalf of the Department, admissibility of such document was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble with the plot in question. Those plots were situated in a better locality, and they are also on the main road. They are also not having nuisance value as the present plot was having. From the objections of the transferee, it is clear that the sales relied on by the Competent Authority for determining the fair market value of this plots cannot be a proper guide. On the other hand, the sale deeds relied on by the transferee are quite comparable with the sale in question. All such plots situate in the same locality. Plot No. 4 was sold on 18th Nov., 1971 by the same transferor @ Rs. 20 per sq. yd. The plot in question was agreed to be sold on 20th April, 1974 @ Rs. 33 per sq. yd. It means, the transferor while selling this property, has taken into consideration, the increased trend of the value of the immovable property. 15. The ld. Deptl. Representative contended that the agreement in question was not registered and as such it cannot be taken note of. Reliance was placed on s. 269F(9)of the Act. 16. The ld. counsel for the transferee contended that the said provision is quite different, and it does not stand in the way of the transferee. The transferee never expected that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
