COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. K C AGNES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE income-tax references, are at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions of law have been referred to this court:

(2.) THE assessee had purchased land measuring 3.73 acres in Fort Cochin for a consideration of Rs. 21.26 lakhs which would work out at the rate of Rs. 5,700 per cent. Out of the above, an extent of 1.21 acres of land was sold by the assessee in 1982. From the remaining portion, 60 cents of land were sold to minor daughters of Mohd. Salim Pasha of Bombay under the sale deed dated February 25, 1983, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 4,80,000, at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against Pasha, the case of the assessee that the property was purchased at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent has been accepted. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The sale deed will show that the price was for Rs. 8,000 per cent when the agreement dated March 1, 1983, shows that the parties agreed to purchase the property at Rs. 12,951 per cent. A receipt is also relied on in the form of a letter dated April 2, 1983, to show that the property was agreed to be purchased at Rs. 12,951 per cent. When the document shows a fixed price, there will be a presumption that it is the correct price agreed upon by the parties. It is true that on the basis of the agreement the sale deed was executed. But it is not necessary that the price stated in the agreement will be the price shown in the sale deed. Sometimes, it may be higher and sometimes it may be lower. Sometimes intentionally a lesser value may be shown in the sale deed. Even if it is assumed to be so, unless it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the agreement was paid for the sale, we cannot come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. In this case, further it is found that in the assessment of Pasha, it was finally found that the amount was received only at Rs. 8,000 per cent. It is taking into all these matters into consideration that the Tribunal held that the property was sold at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent. Thus, the Tribunal, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that Rs. 12,951 was not the amount for which the property was sold. According to us, there is no rule that the amount shown in the receipt was the actual amount paid. So far as the other questions are concerned, we do not find that any substantial questions of law arise because as already stated, the only question in this case is whether the amount stated in the sale deed is correct or not. According to us, the amount stated in the sale deed is the correct amount unless there are circumstances to ignore the same.