TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s never executed, and the offer to purchase 10.21 hectares, a part of the same 13.25 hectares, for ₹ 7 crores that was not accepted and taken to a logical conclusion, as evidence of fair market value of the land in question. Besides these two the Assessing Officer did not bring any other evidence to show that the market value of the impugned 10.21 hectares was ₹ 7 crores. The comparison by the Assessing Officer between qualitatively different agreements with completely different terms and conditions was not appropriate. The Assessing Officer did not bring on record any evidence to show that the appellant had indeed paid ₹ 7 crores to Satya Narain Kanchhal and Rukmani Devi Kanchhal for land admeasuring 10.21 hectares - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not believable looking to the circumstances of the case. Sequence of events clearly establishes that the sellers have backed out from earlier agreement because new purchasers might have been offered consideration over ₹ 7 crores for the impugned land. Consequently, the sellers changed the attitude due to greediness. It is well known fact that nobody would be ready to sell his property less than the market value. But in the instant case, it is surprising to note that the sellers have agreed to sell their property at ₹ 1.87 crores only instead of ₹ 7 crores. This means that the sellers have to bear the loss of ₹ 5.13 crores (7-1.87 crores). In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evidence of fair market value of the land in question. Besides these two the Assessing Officer did not bring any other evidence to show that the market value of the impugned 10.21 hectares was ₹ 7 crores. Further, I hold that the comparison by the Assessing Officer between qualitatively different agreements with completely different terms and conditions was not appropriate. The Assessing Officer did not bring on record any evidence to show that the appellant had indeed paid ₹ 7 crores to Satya Narain Kanchhal and Rukmani Devi Kanchhal for land admeasuring 10.21 hectares. In given facts and circumstances, the decision of the Assessing Officer to add ₹ 5.13 crores is not confirmed. Grounds 2 and 3 are accepted. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an inference was drawn that property was sold for more amount than shown in the sale deeds. This case does not help the Revenue as in the case in hand, apparently, there was no material before the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion that the property was sold at the rate of ₹ 40 per sq. ft. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), in which it was held that the assessee must be shown to have received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as consideration. Difference in market value and consideration declared in sale-deed is not sufficient for assumption of higher consideration. He also placed reliance on CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered sale deeds and rates of property fixed by the Stamp Valuation Authority for registration purposes cannot be taken to be the price for which the property might have been sold. Thus, there was no justification for the Assessing Officer to estimate selling price of land at ₹ 40 per sq. ft. instead of ₹ 20 per sq. ft. and for the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to presume selling price at ₹ 22 per sq. ft. and thus the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee and hence question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue. 7. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 8. Taking into consideration, the contention raised by counsel for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
