9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", New Delhi (for short the "Tribunal"), dated October 11, 1988, allowing 13 appeals preferred by three persons, namely, M/s. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd., M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Ansal Housing and Estate (P.) Ltd., New Delhi. Six of these appeals had been preferred by M/s. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd., four by M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries (P.) Ltd. and two by M/s. Ansal Housing and Estate (P.) Ltd. These appeals were directed against the identical orders passed by the competent authority under section 269F(6) of the Act ordering acquisition of the property purchased by these three persons vide 13 sale deeds. Since the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in an identical style, on the basis of the official valuer's report in all these cases and the objections before the valuer and the competent authority had been identical and similar, the appeals were disposed of together after hearing arguments in I. T. A. No. 12/Delhi of 1986. This position is not disputed by counsel for the appellant and, therefore, he addressed the arguments only in I. T. A. No. 1 of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was totally unrealistic and cannot be taken into account at all. Pockets of land which the transferee-company might be compelled to buy later on as some farmers were not selling their lands with the object to get higher price because development would have taken place. (iii) The land under consideration was underdeveloped raw land and development in the area had yet to be started. (iv) Compared sale instances are in respect of left out pockets which had been bargained at a higher figure due to development in the surrounding areas at all with the transactions under consideration. Average purchase rates of adjoining colony Phase I shall be comparable to the lands of the transferee. (v) The average selling price of the compared colony was much higher than the selling price booked by the transferee-company for the prospective purchasers. (vi) Land under consideration was not comparable with a land which was on the main road and the development being in full swing. The land of the transferee had only unlevelled kacha village rasta and was without any approach road. (vii) It is stated that they are still in the process of buying lands in the surrounding area on negotiated rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of land for residential colony. The seller could, therefore, realise higher price. (xii) In their cases they entered into agreement for the purchase of land in village Sukhrali and other surrounding villages in July/August, 1981, and immediately thereafter started having second thoughts about going ahead with the acquisition of further land for obtaining the licence for a colony. As a matter of fact, they dropped the idea and subsequently started filing suits against the sellers not for specific performance, but for recovery of earnest money and advances paid under agreements to sell. It was only in March/April 1985, that they revised their decision and got the licence in July, 1985. Therefore, the sale instances of D. L. F. were not at all applicable and comparable on this score. (xiii) It was submitted that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding acquisition of land in villages Sarhol, Sukhrali and Chakkarpur had ultimately been issued in March, 1985, and there was a near panic among the land owners in these and surrounding villages including Kanhai. Most of them, therefore were anxious to have the sale deeds executed and realise their money as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser in the area. As regards objection No. (viii), the transferee had relied upon a few selected sale instances of coloniser M/s. Unitech Limited (South City) who had purchased land in village Salokhra. First of all, it is clarified that we are supposed to rely upon the highest sale instance of the area and not on the sale instance showing the lowest rate of the area as selected by the transferee. My contention finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. R. M. V. Rao Bahadur Rani of Vuyyar v. Collector of Madras [1968] 2 SCJ 869, wherein it was held that if there were several sale instances, then it was advisable to select the one where highest value had been declared. Similar was the decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohan Singh [1978] 112 ITR 430. M/s. Unitech Limited (South City) are small coloniser of the area unlike the transferee. They have also purchased the pieces of land showing higher rates than that of the transferee in village Sukhrali for colonisation as under: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Regn. No. Area Apparent Name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that barring one or two cases of the transferee situated in village Sarhol, no notification of acquisition had been issued in any other case. Due consideration could be given only in the cases where the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued. Lands of cases No. G. R. G/128 of 1985-86 and GRG/1 of 1986-87 were purchased after the withdrawal of notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, no benefit could be given on this account. As regards objection No. (xiv), this argument of the transferee does not carry much weight as the fear of pre-emption lurked in the mind of every buyer of the land. Therefore, no benefit can be allowed on this account, as everybody whosoever may be the purchaser of land had the same fear, if any. As regards objection No. (xv), every coloniser is supposed to incur expenditure on development of the lands purchased for converting the land into a colony. Similar expenditure had also been incurred by M/s. D. L. F. Universal Ltd. with whom we are comparing the case of the transferee. Therefore, no benefit can be allowed on this account. As regards objections Nos. (xvi) and (xvii), it is mentioned that the fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reduction in price on this score. The members of the Bench of the Tribunal had personally inspected the plots in question on September 2, 1988, to verify the factual position. Their findings in respect of that inspection are as under: "On September 2, 1988, when we had gone to inspect these plots in question with plots which came to be compared, it was found as a fact that from west end corner the Tiratha from which goes two roads, one to Palam Vihar on right and the other to DLF Enclave Phases 1 to 3 on straight. This was at a distance of 8 kms. from 'west end'. From the 'Tiratha' DLF Enclave started after 4 kms. and ended after another 4 kms. This is true that 4 kms. length of DLF 1, 2 and 3 Phases were running along with the National Highway No. 8, the point at which DLF Enclave ended on National Highway No. 8 was joined by Gurgaon Mehrauli Road which also moved along with DLF Enclave Phases 1 to 3 for about some distance of 4 kms. Therefrom we returned back to the 'Tiratha' again which was about 12 kms. covering distance of 4 kms. on Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road and another 4 kms. on National Highway No. 8 and again from DLF start to Tiratha. From 'Tiratha', proceeding towards Pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not liable to levy of capital gains tax. The Tribunal also observed that in the presence of the departmental representative, it was found the distance of land of the transferee from the land covered by the sale instances relied upon by the Valuation Officer was far in excess, almost double the distances mentioned by the Valuation Officer. This, according to the Tribunal, shook the very foundation of the Valuation Officer's report. It is clear that the Tribunal has mainly based its findings on the factual aspect of the matter. Various infirmities in the valuation report, as already noticed above, have been pointed out. Mr. A. S. Tewatia, learned standing counsel for the Revenue was given a specific opportunity to controvert the aforementioned factual findings of the Tribunal. However, he has fairly conceded that there is nothing on record to show any error in the same. He also could not explain the basis on which reduction in price ranging from 10-20 per cent, had been allowed by the Valuation Officer/competent authority while dealing with the comparable instances on account of difference in proximity of location as also in proximity of time. In view of the above, we are sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
