9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has sold his property under six different transaction to different buyers in March, 1981, and May, 1982. He had for this purpose divided his single property which was described by the counsel of the transferors, Shri P. N. Arora, to be a plot of land with a small 'Kotha' on a part of it, whose value was worked out by the Assistant Valuation Officer at Rs. 4,502 only. The location of the property as per the Assistant Valuation Officer's report is corner of Maheshwari Street at Kotkapura. The Competent Authority (for short C. A.) has described the property as "An Ahata situated in Shastri Market / Maheshwari Street, Kotkapura. ". It is also worth noting that out of six sale deeds two of March, 1981, and May, 1982 are in favour of the same buyer Smt. Harnam Kaur. She purchased 19 sq. yds. in the front portion of the property of the transferor in March, 1981 and 88 sq. yds, of the rear portion in May, 1982 for Rs. 9,500 and Rs. 14,500 respectively. Similarly, S/Shri Bhagwan Singh and Narinder Singh, who are brothers, purchased the property of the transferor twice, once 19 sq, yds, of the front portion for Rs. 9,500 in March 1981, and again 80 sq. yds, of the rear portion for Rs. 13,500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the section 269C (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was contended that section 269C (1) of the Act does not provide for initiating of acquisition proceedings for any immovable property the fair market value of which did not exceed Rs. 25,000. It was further contended that treating each sale transaction to be in respect of separate immovable property, none of the pieces of property purchased by the three transferees either had an apparent consideration of more than Rs. 25,000 or even the fair market value determined by the AVO at more than that figure. It was submitted that splitting the value in round figure of Rs. 64,000 for 57 sq. yds, of the land and the building thereon, it will come to Rs. 21,333, which is clearly not more than the limit of Rs. 25,000 prescribed in section 269C (1) of the Act. In support of this submissions, attention was invited also to be the Revenue's own conduct in starting three separate acquisition proceedings relating to each sale. Support was also drawn from the Kerala High Court decision in the case of CIT v. T. V. Suresh Chandran [1980] 121 ITR 985 and it was pointed out that the High Courts had held that where immovable property w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran's case, constructed four different sales to four different transferees even when the sale deed was one. The Court observed that each one of the four transferees had no right and, therefore, one single acquisition proceeding based on that single deed was not held to be in accordance with section 269C (1) of the Act. Thus, it follows from the Kerala authority that action for acquisition could lie in respect of each transfer of any immovable property as witnessed by a sale deed and not on the basis of the number of sale deeds. Considering the matter on this footing, the three transfers witnessed by three sale deeds relating to pieces of 19 sq. yds. of property each will have to be separately judged for the application of section 269C (1) of the Act and test of fair market value applied. We do not find any force in the line of reasoning of the CA as mentioned in paras 3 and 22 of his order. It is clear to us on reading the report of the AVO, which is Annexure 'B' to the order of the CA that the AVO treated the open big portion of the plot of the transferor to be an Ahata. The word used is not correct inasmuch as it is clear from the AVO's own report that the property of the transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts sold in May, 1982 nor the location, which was very much disadvantageous and nor even the location of the property of the sale instance, which was considered by the AVO for preparing his report about, the land rate to be applied in respect of three sales made in March 1981. Shri Arora referred to the report of the AVO, which is Annexure 'B' of the order of the CA to say that the AVo considered the sale of shop in Shastri Market near Mahaswari Street, and not of a plot of land in Maheswari Street and by some process not explained derived from the sale price of the shop the rate per sq. yd. of land underneath the shop. It was conceded that if the CA had applied his mind, which he was required to do to form his reasons to believe, he would not have failed to notice the discrepancy in the approach of the AVO in the earlier valuation report about the sales in March, 1981 and further fairly advised he should have also considered the location of the plots sold vis-a-vis three pieces of property sold earlier in March, 1981. It was stated that barring the front portion of the property, there was no access to the rear portion of the property of the transferor. It was also explained that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either to the facts and the circumstances of the case or to the contents of the report of the AVO in respect of three sale transactions of March, 1981. When we look into that report, which is Annexure 'B' to the order of the CA, we find that the sale considered is of a shop in Shastri Market near Maheswari Street, which is away from the pieces of land purchased by the three transferees concerned in these appeals and also not a back ward portion of a plot situated in Maheswari Street. The AVO himself stated in Maheswari Street in continuation of shastri Market and was not, therefore part of Shastri Market as is the impression given while describing the location at time 3 of the first page of the order of the CA. Again that shop was sold for Rs. 26,000 and had an area of 31 sq. yds. Without indicating how, from the sale of built shop AVO found the value of land underneath, nevertheless he fixed it at the rate of Rs. 709 per sq. yd. Again from that figure of Rs. 709 per sq. yd. he determined the value of land on estimate at Rs. 1.050 per sq yds. for sale transactions made in March, 1981. If the CA had indeed carefully read this report, he would not have failed to notice the difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
