TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the year under appeal. The ITO found that property for House No. 1, Road No. 44, Punjabi Bagh,New Delhi, had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 as stated in the agreement for sale and purchase entered into between the vendor and vendee on11-1-1979. In support of the consideration shown in this instrument, the assessee had filed valuation report from his valuer, the ITO himself obtained the valuation of the said property from the Valuation Officer after making a reference to him under section 55A of the Act. The property was sold by Shri Hari Ram, father and his three sons, Sanjay, was major, Kailash and Sham were minors. Therefore, the father as a natural guardian of the minors was unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in adding to the total income of the assessee the impugned sum of Rs. 47,500 because the actual consideration that passed between the vendors and the vendee was only Rs. 1,50,000, that it was for the revenue to prove that anything more than that passed hands, that the plot on which the building was constructed was an oddity that the property was not easily saleable, that the fair market value of the property, therefore, was not comparable with the properties of normal dimension even in the same locality, that the superstructure was very old having been constructed in the year 1962-63 and lacked modern amenities which could fetch good value, that the competent authorities having initiated proceedings under section 269 of the Act had finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other contentions of the assessee had been duly considered by the Valuation Officer in arriving at the value of the property as on 11-1-1979, that the assessee has not shown that the value as on 11-1-1979 was not reasonable and fair, that the dropping of the proceedings by the competent authority does not per se give any right to the assessee to claim that there was no extra consideration than the stated one in the document, that the ITO had been reasonable and fair in taking the value only as on 11-1-1979 and that no case has been made out by the assessee for an interference in the order of the learned AAC and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. These submissions were made on the basis of the following authorities and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat valuer's estimate on the cost of consideration could not be taken as sacrosanct. The Court has further observed that a valuation is, even in the most expert hands, and inexact instrument of measurement. It is only an estimate and no two valuers will agree on the same subject. This indicates that on the mere report of a Valuation Officer, the ITO cannot build up a case that something more than the stated consideration had passed between the parties. In order to build up a case of that type, the ITO has to go beyond that and establish after necessary enquiries and on acceptable documentary evidence that the stated consideration was not the real consideration. 8. It is pertinent to note that there was no delay merely because the two part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
