TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstatement of consideration in such a case involving an approval accorded by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Trusts Act. Mr. Kabra seeks to distinguish the same by pleading that the said case law pertains to the proceedings u/s.269UD instead of Section 50C of the Act. We observe that this distinction fails to rebut the fact that the above hon’ble high courts have considered the relevant provisions enshrined in Bombay Trust Law vis-à-vis understatement of sale considerations of the relevant capital assets therein. We conclude in this factual backdrop that whatever sale price Charity Commissioner had approved had to be followed in assessee’s impugned sale deed. Couple with this, the lower appellate authority has already observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic Trust Act. It has sold/transferred the capital asset in question bearing survey no. 503 to 510 admeasuring 2447 sq.mtrs. known as SakinaBaugh to Sant Rohitdas Charitable Trust, for ₹ 12.50lacs by way of the registered sale deed in question dated 24.02.2010. The Assessing Officer received AIR information that the price in question taken for stamp purposes was ₹ 74,87,400/-. Both the learned counsel at this stage take us to learned CIT(A) s findings under challenge indicating the following elaborate discussion on the issue as under: 4.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submission filed by appellant. The AO in the assessment order has adopted the value of land on the basis of value shown by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much value. ( iii) The appellant had requested the AO to refer the matter to the DVO which was rejected by the AO. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the transaction of sale of the property has been made with the prior approval of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad. Before the finalization of transaction, the Charity Commissioner had invited objections to the proposed sale of the property and accordingly advertised in Vernacular Daily 'Sandesh'. Only thereafter, a written order was passed permitting the appellant to sell the said property for ₹ 12,50,000/-. As the transaction took place under the supervision and directions of an Authority i.e. Charity Commissioner. I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer for factual verification of the said details. We find no merit in the instant argument. Page 11 of the paper book indicates that the Charity Commissioner had passed his order as per the provisions of the Bombay Trust Act and Rules (as applicable in Gujarat state) approving the impugned sale at a price of ₹ 12.50lacs which ultimately culminated in the sale deed. There can hardly be any quarrel that such an approval involves a long drawn procedure of public notice inviting relevant bids. The Revenue fails to dispute that the assessee Trust is bound by such an approval order passed by the statutory authority. We further find that hon ble jurisdictional high court s judgment in Om Shri Jigar Association Vs. Union of India (1994) 209 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
