TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that Industrial Plot No. 14 situated in Sector 6, Faridabad, was transferred by M/s Mimec India (P) Ltd. to M/s Khaitan Electricals Ltd., the respondent herein, for a consideration of ₹ 11,00,000 vide sale deed dt. 31st March, 1981, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Ballabhgarh. The Government Valuation Officer determined the fair market value of the plot at ₹ 20,40,000. Finally, vide his report dt. 17th March, 1986, he reduced the market value to ₹ 19,86,580 after having gone into the objections of the transferee. 3. Notice under s. 269D(1) of. the Act of 1961 was then published in Part-III, Section-I of the Official Gazette on 7th Nov., 1981. The same was served upon the transferor and the transferee. Proclam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) had relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Tribunal on the strength of judicial precedents held notice to be defective. The Tribunal then dealt with three different valuation reports given by the Department itself. In the reasons for initiating acquisition proceedings the fair market value that was adopted by the Department was ₹ 20,40,000, which was reduced by the Valuation Officer to ₹ 19,86,580 by a subsequent report and it was further reduced by IAC (Acqn.) to ₹ 18,36,160. On the facts, as stated above, learned Tribunal relied upon the following observations of Madras High Court in case CIT vs. Apsara Talkies (1985) 155 ITR 303(Mad) : It is jocularly said that a valuer is one who, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis for this is that in August, 1981, the HUDA had offered industrial plots on G.T. Road, Faridabad, @ ₹ 122 per sq. yd. against foreign exchange. The sizes of such plots were 1,300 to 5,000 sq. yds. Keeping the big plot area of the said property in view and its location being slightly away from G.T. Road and the date of sale being March, 1981, the fair market value of the land in question was taken @ ₹ 75, against which when we look to certificate of Estate Officer, Faridabad, we find that rate in Sector 6, Industrial Area is certified to be ₹ 30.95 per sq. yd. This was mentioned by the assessee to the Valuation Officer, who as per p. 137 of the valuation report, observed in one line Rs. 30.95 per sq. yd. was the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the IAC (Acqn.). 9. Learned Tribunal then dealt with inordinate delay in passing the impugned order, subject-matter of appeal before it. The proceedings were initiated, on 31st March, 1981, and acquisition proceedings came to be finalised on 30th July, 1986. Learned Tribunal then, on the question of inordinate delay, on the basis of the observations made by Karnataka High Court in Cyril Albert D.I. Souza 15 ITR 685(sic), held as follows: In the instant case, the records did not show any reason whatsoever for the delay in passing the impugned order. It was, therefore, clear that there was excessive deferment of the action which the IAC was bound to take under s. 269F and that inordinate and inexcusable delay was sufficient to vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would work out to 22-1/2 per cent, as contended by the learned counsel of the assessee. The approximate depreciation allowed in a sum of ₹ 53,000, therefore, would further be increased by about a lac of rupees or so. This is also apparent from the order that Valuation Officer has adopted the rate of ₹ 659 for valuing the stores, whereas for office block he has adopted the same @ ₹ 650 per sq. yd. It is a fact of life that office blocks are always constructed at higher rate than the stores. One specific instance, which was pointed out by the assessee, was of Plot No. 37, Sector 6, which was sold on 27th March, 1981, for a consideration of 8 lacs of rupees. The, comparative figures regarding the said plot and plot in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case fair market value of the property in dispute had exceeded the apparent consideration therefor by more than 25 per cent presumption available under sub-cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 269C was also not drawn against the assessee. With a view to appreciate the contention of learned counsel, as noted above, it will be useful to reproduce sub-s. (2) of s. 269C of the Act of 1961, which runs thus : (2) In any proceedings under this Chapter in respect of any immovable property,' (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than twenty-five per cent of such apparent consideration, it shall be conclusive proof that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
