9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Competent Authority under section 269C of the Act held a preliminary enquiry regarding the valuation of the property. An approved valuer, Shri P. D. Sharma, furnished a valuation report whereby he estimated the value of the plot at Rs. 5,46,000 on February 5, 1982. The Competent Authority also obtained a valuation report from the Valuation Officer, Shri Manohar Lal. By a report dated July 30, 1982, Shri Lal worked out the fair market value at Rs. 5,85,000 on the basis that the land was worth Rs. 3,000 per square yard. A subsequent report by the same Valuation Officer dated September 6, 1982, determined the fair market value at Rs. 10,53,000 on the basis that the valuation was at Rs. 5,400 per square yard. There was then a notice to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty. The Tribunal observed as under ; "That apart, a reading of the valuation report communicated to the learned Competent Authority by the Valuation Officer as per his letter, dated September 6, 1982, makes it abundantly clear that there is no material on record either on the file of the learned Competent Authority or else in the valuation report acted upon by the learned Competent Authority for acquiring the subject-matter as to how the price of Rs. 2,500 was arrived at and how the 'fair market value' of the subject-matter has been arrived at the rate of Rs. 5,400 per sq. yd." Learned counsel for the Department has urged before us that the report of the Valuation Officer showing that the market value was Rs. 10,53,000 enabled the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1972, and another dated September 6, 1982, which gave different amounts as the fair market value. The market value shown in these two reports is not based on any particular evidence but on applying a multiplier in respect of certain earlier transactions. For instance, in the report dated September 6, 1982, the report states that the price of a residential plot in July, 1981, was Rs. 2,500. For the time gap 10% was added and the result multiplied by 2.4 giving an amount of Rs. 6,600. A discount was given in respect of a three-year period of litigation that was proposed by applying a multiplier of 0.79, thus reducing the value to Rs. 5,214. Then there was an addition of Rs. 261 making the total to Rs. 5,400 in round figures. Obviously, by usi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two separate valuation reports. Having come to the conclusion that the valuation was not properly done, the Tribunal eventually held as follows: " In view of there being no material on record and in view of the fact that there were two reports by the Valuation Officer and both these valuation reports give different figures, it cannot be said that within the meaning of section 269C of the Act, the Competent Authority had reason to believe that the subject-matter of acquisition had been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of property-the subject-matter of these proceedings or else that the consideration for transfer of the subject-matter as agreed to between the transferor and the transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair market value must be more than Rs. 6,32,500. The only material the Competent Authority had was valuation report which showed that the value was Rs. 10,53,000. As pointed out by the Tribunal, both these reports are based on theoretical calculations of the value and not of any market sale. It is also very surprising that two such reports should have been submitted by the (same) Valuation Officer. Learned counsel for the Department urges that the second report was submitted because there was a mistake in the first one. Both the reports have been quoted in full in the Tribunal's order. We asked the learned counsel what the mistake in the first report is and why the second report is more correct than the first report. No explanation at al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othing else on record to show that the second report is only to correct some glaring error or oversight in the first report. We find that section 269L allows the Competent Authority to require the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value and report the same. There is no mention of two reports in section 269L. The powers of the Valuation Officer are stated in sub-section (2) of section 269L. That power is as follows: " (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of dealing with such reference, have all the powers that he has under section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)." There is no mention of any second report in section 38A. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
