TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted under s. 269A of the Act, received information that House No. 117-N/73 Kakadeo, Kanpur, was transferred by Smt. Kamini Devi, wife of Shri K. N. Mehotra, to Sri Prem Narain Tandon for consideration of rupees 49,500. After obtaining the report of the official valuer, the competent authority initiated proceedings and issued notice to the transferor and the transferee as well as to the tenant occupying the house to show cause as to why the property should not be acquired under the provisions of Chap. XX-A of the Act. The notice was issued as the competent authority had reason to believe that the property was sold by the transferor to the transferee for an apparent consideration which was less than the fair market value of the property and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one Shri H. C. Kaushal, an approved valuer, who had assessed the value of the house before the sale. According to his report the value of the property before the transfer was Rs. 38,412 only. Sri Tandon further pleaded that the sale money paid by him was the fair market value of the property. He stated that the property had been let out to a tenant since 29th November, 1971, on monthly rent of Rs. 225 and the tenant was not paying the rent. The property had been assessed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, in the quinquennial assessment for 1973-74 to 1978-79, on the annual letting value of Rs. 3,300 and the house tax and water tax was assessed at Rs. 288.75 and Rs. 206.25, respectively. The Competent Authority after hearing the transferor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be applied and the property in dispute could not be acquired. On these findings the Tribunal set aside the order of the Competent Authority. Aggrieved, the Commissioner preferred this second appeal under s. 269H of the Act against the order of the Tribunal. Section 269H provides that the Commissioner or any person aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal under s. 269G may, within 60 days, prefer an appeal against the order to the High Court on any question of law (Emphasis supplied). No appeal under s. 269H is permissible against the order of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court on question of fact as the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court is in the nature of a second appeal. The Legislature has specifically pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in rejecting the report of the official valuer. The official valuer of the Department had determined the market value of the property at rupees 77,700 on land and building method. According to him the value of the land was Rs. 27,990 and the cost of building represented Rs. 49,734. In determining the aforesaid amount the official valuer added 65% of the cost for Kanpur Index. Thus he included an additional amount of Rs. 21,000 towards the value of the property. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the addition of 65% on the total cost of the land and building was unjustified and if that was excluded the market value of the property, according to the departmental valuer itself, would come to about Rs. 55,000, which has less than 15% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer before the Appellate Tribunal, it was open to the Tribunal to discard the addition of 65% for Kanpur Index in determining the market value of the property. The provisions of Chap. XXII-A of the I.T. Act affect the property right of a citizen. These provisions are stringent which result in an appropriation of property by the State. The authorities administering these laws should not lightly invoke these provisions. When proceedings for acquisition of property of a citizen are initiated by the Competent Authority the provisions of the Act should be strictly followed. In cases where the Competent Authority proposes to acquire a citizen's property he should place all material fairly and squarely before the Appellate Tribunal, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Tribunal further added 30% to the value, as the sale transaction had taken place in August, 1973, whereas the house in dispute was constructed in 1968, and thus the value of the property was determined at Rs. 50,000. We find no error in the approach of the Tribunal in determining the value of the property on annual rental value. The mode of determining the value of the building on the basis of annual rental value is well recognised. Even the Legislature has prescribed this method under the W.T. Rules, r. 1 BB, which permits the valuation of a building on the basis of the annual rental income by applying a multiple of 10%. The Tribunal, in our opinion, did not commit any error or transgress its jurisdiction in determining the market va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
