9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining fair market value of property under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore, against a common order made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, reversing the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's order under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the transfer of an immovable property in Bangalore, where the fair market value was in question due to apparent consideration stipulated in the transfer instruments. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner directed the acquisition of the property under section 269F(6) of the Act based on his determination of the fair market value exceeding the apparent consideration by more than 25%. The transferor and transferees appealed to the Tribunal, disputing this determination. The Tribunal, after reevaluating the evidence, concluded that the fair market value did not exceed the apparent consideration, thereby allowing the appeals of the transferor and transferees. The main issue before the court was whether the determination of fair market value by the Tribunal was legal and valid. The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not critically examine the evidence and had not recorded its conclusion as required by law. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Tribunal's finding was on a question of fact, not subject to correction by the court under section 269H of the Act. The court noted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, allowing it to reevaluate the evidence and reach a different conclusion. The court emphasized that the Tribunal must critically examine the evidence and apply correct valuation principles while doing so. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed critically examined all material evidence using the comparable sales method of valuation and had reached a different conclusion from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner based on correct principles. The court held that the decision of the Tribunal was essentially on a question of fact, and as per section 269H of the Act, the court could only interfere on a question of law, not fact. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeals. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the cases.
|
