9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961, has been made and that order made by the competent authority has been upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Bombay. Against that, the present appeal has been filed. We may, at the outset, make the position clear, in that apart from the merits, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1628 of 1973, 1629 of 1973 and 1630 and 1631 of 1973, decided on February 6, 1981 (All India Reporter Ltd. v. Competent Authority [1986] 162 ITR 697) so as to contend that the proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed as not being in accordance with law, including the initial notice, being bad and not warranted by the provisions of law. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ph 4 of the order, while referring to the Competent Authority's valuation, we find that the land value was worked out at Rs. 225 per square yard and the value of the building as scrap value at Rs. 39,165, the total being Rs. 5,11,890. Under the conveyance deed, it is not in dispute that the vendee has to pay and he did pay a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. It is further not in dispute that the property was a tenanted property and by reason of the claims of the tenants with regard to the property, the liability undertaken by the purchaser was to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants which works out to Rs. 2,66,000. These positions and quanta are not in dispute on behalf of the Revenue. If these figures are kept in view for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agraphs Nos. 4 and 19 of the order of the Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the market value of the property would be Rs. 2,73,165. This figure is notionally worked out on the basis that the land value could fetch Rs. 200 per square yard. It is not in dispute that the consideration paid for the purchase of the property is Rs. 2,00,000 while the liability to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants is undertaken by the purchaser and its value is worked out notionally to the tune of Rs. 2,66,000. Keeping in view that the property was tenanted and farther that the proceedings leading to the compromise with the tenants were required to be initiated whereunder alternative accommodation was required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted liability of providing alternative accommodation to the tenants as a part of the transaction. It is not suggested by the Revenue that that was not the liability so undertaken by the purchaser or that that liability should not be considered. For all purposes, that liability is treated as part of the transaction undertaken by the purchaser. Even in such a case the value of the accommodation is notionally worked out. Under the circumstances, therefore, no clear case existed for a finding that the market value of the property exceeded the apparent consideration in the conveyance deed by more than 25 per cent. For all these reasons, and particularly on the strength of the earlier judgment of this court referred to above, the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
