COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KANTA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the CIT(A) under S. 269H of, the IT Act, 1961, against the order made by Tribunal passed in Income-tax Acquisition Appeal No. 6 of 1986. IAC, Acquisition Range II, New Delhi, directed acquisition of property, namely, 7, Court Road, Delhi. Acquisition Appeal No. 7 of 1985 was preferred by group of purchasers of the said property.

(2.) THE property is known as No. 7, Court Road, Delhi. Details of transactions are given in para 3 of the order made by the Tribunal. It was an agreement to sell between the parties, which was executed on 12th Feb., 1975 by which the said property was agreed to be transferred for a consideration of Rs. 15,03,500. Sale deed was executed on 1st Nov., 1975, and was presented for registration on 14th Nov., 1978 before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. However, the same was registered on 15th Dec., 1978. On receipt of information under s. 269B of the IT Act, an inspector was deputed to enquire and compute the fair market value. According to the inspector, the fair market value would be Rs. 81,90,800 and thus, there was a difference from apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent. It may be noted that the Competent Authority referred the matter to the Valuation Cell and the Valuation Officer reported that the value of the property as on December, 1978 to be Rs. 26,37,000. Since this was also more than the apparent consideration by over 15 per cent, proceedings, were initiated for acquisition of the property by publication in the Gazette dt. 1st Nov., 1979. After receiving the objections from the parties, the Competent Authority arrived at a conclusion that the value of the property on 15th Dec., 1978, would be Rs. 60,61,000 and on 12th Feb., 1975, the value was Rs. 22,95,000. Thus, there was difference on the date of agreement as well. THE order was passed for acquisition of property, against which an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, which, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, reversed the order made by the Competent Authority and hence the Revenue is before this Court by way of this appeal.