JOSEPH VALLOORAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 269H(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant purchased 53.34 cents of land comprised in two contiguous plots situate in Sankarpur area within the Berhampur Municipality in the District of Ganjam from one Subakaran Barariafor a consideration of Rs. 48,500. THIS property is a part of a larger piece of land measuring 86 cents in all which the vendor had purchased in March, 1969, for a consideration of Rs. 35,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Acquisition Range of Bhubaneswar, initiated proceedings under Section 269C of the Act on the footing that he as competent authority had reason to believe that the transfer by the appellant's vendor to the appellant was for an apparent consideration which was less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for the transfer as agreed to between the parties had not been truly stated in the sale deed with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer or facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Act or the Wealth-tax Act. The appellant furnished his objection and placed for consideration of the competent authority a valuation report obtained from an expert. The official valuation officer valued the property at Rs. 94,300 while the registered valuer engaged by the appellant determined the valuation at Rs. 47,000. The competent authority made an order in terms of Section 269F(6) of the Act for acquisition of the property.

(2.) THE appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 269C(1) of the Act. THE Tribunal heard both the parties and came to hold that the fair market value of the property would be Rs. 65,000. Yet, the order of acquisition was sustained as even on that basis the statutory acquisition could be made. This appeal has been carried against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) THE appeal is allowed and the order for acquisition is vacated. THE appellant shall have his costs of the proceeding. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees three hundred.