9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C" (in short "the Tribunal"), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), for our opinion: " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to the case of the assessee? 2. Whether, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. The said property was sold by the assessee for Rs. 48,000 to Smt. Rattan Devi and her son, Shri Hem Chand Gupta. The property was valued by the Assistant Valuation Officer who determined the fair market value as on March 31, 1971, at Rs. 80,650. After obtaining the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (in short "the IAC"), the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived an amount over and above the consideration of Rs. 48,000 specified and declared in the sale deed. We do not find any material which would indicate any such receipt of the amount by the assessee nor have the departmental authorities recorded any finding to that effect either in the assessment order or in the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner." Reliance was placed on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of section 52(2) would arise. But while considering the materials on record, it was observed that there was no material which would indicate any receipt over and above the consideration indicated in the document. There was no such finding in the assessment order or the appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That being the position, it was held that section 52(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
