LALITA TODI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred under Section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act "), against the order dated September 21, 1976, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Patna, in I.T. (Acquisition) Appeals Nos. 2, 5, 4, 9, 7 and 8 (Pat.) of 1974-75, respectively. Copies of the impugned order were served on the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 1977 on November 10, 1976, whereas on the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 325 of 1976 on October 21, 1976. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the appellants and affirmed the order dated November 11, 1974, passed by the Competent Authority, IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Patna (hereinafter to be called the "Competent Authority") in File Nos. III-64/Acq/73-74, III-71/Acq./73-74, III-66/Acq/73-74, III-75/Acq/73-74, III-72/Acq/73-74 and III-75/Acq/ 73-74.

(2.) AT the outset, in all fairness, I must state that initially only Miscellaneous Appeal No. 325 of 1976 was posted for hearing as shown in the daily cause list. Learned counsel for the parties, however, agreed that since a number of appeals have been filed by different parties against the same order, all of them should be heard together. Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 1977 had already been admitted and notices issued and received by the parties. Two other appeals, namely, Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 4 and 8 of 1977, had not by then been admitted. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, we took up for hearing all the appeals excepting Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 4 and 8 of 1977 which, as stated above, had not been admitted at the time of hearing of these appeals. Accordingly, we heard learned counsel for the parties in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 325 of 1976 and Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 1977 only. Since all these appeals arise out of the same order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) BY virtue of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 269C(2), where the property has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than its fair market value, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, (i) the aggregate consideration has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer, and (ii) the understatement was with the object of tax evasion. Clause (b) of Section 269C(2), therefore, shifts the burden of proof and presumes the party guilty unless he proves himself to be innocent.