TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was directed to refer the aforesaid questions. In pursuance of that the Tribunal has prepared the statement of case under section 256(2) of the Act and referred the aforesaid questions for our opinion. The assessee is assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. She derives income from interest on her investments. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee purchased a plot of land measuring 1,799.99 sq. yards on June 25, 1971, for a sum of Rs. 45,000 from Vinaychand Pravinchand, Jaipur. The sale deed was registered on July 17, 1971. The Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Vinaychand Pravinchand obtained the valuer's report in respect of the said plot and other plots. The Income-tax Officer on the basis of that report gave a notice to the assessee to show cause as to why the value of the property may not be taken as Rs. 81,000 as against Rs. 45,000 shown by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer also informed the assessee that the value of the property was understated by a sum of Rs. 36,000 in the purchase deed and the same represents her investment in the said property outside the account b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort were considered, no explanation has been given by the assessee or her husband before the Income-tax Officer as to why the plot has been sold roughly at half the rate, prevalent in the area to the assessee by Vinaychand Praveenchand, Jaipur. Mr. Ranka submits that no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act, 1961, only on the basis of the fair market value of the asset. The burden is on the Department to prove that value of the asset has been shown at less than the fair market value and also to prove that the real consideration is exceeding the consideration shown in the account book by the assessee. Mr. Ranka has placed reliance on the decisions of their Lordships in the cases of New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd. v. M. B. Naik, ITO [1990] 185 ITR 158 (Bom) ; Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO [1992] 193 ITR 770 (All) ; CIT v. Raja Narendra [1994] 210 ITR 250 (Raj) ; CIT v. (Smt.) Prem Kumari Surana [1994] 206 ITR 715 (Raj) ; CIT v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh and Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj) ; CIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567 (SC) ; CIT v. H. H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988] 173 ITR 79 (Raj) ; Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404 (All) ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received by him and there is an understatement or concealment of the consideration in respect of the transfer. Sub-section (2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him, and there is no concealment or suppression of the consideration. We find that in the present case, it was not the contention of the Revenue that the property was sold by the assessee to his daughter-in-law and five of his children for a consideration which was more than the sum of Rs. 16,500 shown to be the consideration for the property in the instrument of transfer and there was an understatement or concealment of the consideration in respect of the transfer. It was common ground between the parties and that was a finding of fact reached by the income-tax authorities that the transfer of the property by the assessee was a perfectly honest and bona fide transaction where the full value of the consideration received by the assessee was correctly disclosed at the figu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion that under section 69B of the Act, 1961, the Department should establish the fact that more consideration has passed than the consideration shown in account books/sale deed. Therefore, considering the report of the valuer and comparable cases cited above and also the fact that sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee to show cause as to why the value of the plot of land should not be taken on the basis of the rate prevalent in the area, we find no justification to interfere in the value finally estimated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Now, it brings us to see whether the Revenue has established the fact that some more consideration has passed from the assessee to Vinaychand Praveenchand than shown in sale deed ? There is no direct evidence that the assessee has paid more than Rs. 45,000 to Vinaychand Praveenchand for purchase of the plot of land, but at the same time it cannot be ignored that no evidence has been adduced by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer as to why the plot of land has been sold to the assessee for roughly half of the prevalent market rate. In the case of K P. Varghese [1981] 131 ITR 597, their Lordships of the Supreme Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received or paid by him. As stated above in the locality of C-scheme, Jaipur, the adjoining plots were sold at the rate of Rs. 60 or Rs. 75 per sq. yd. and if we take the estimated rate taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal the rate of plot in question comes to Rs. 36 per sq. yd., that is, roughly half of the prevalent market rate in the area. Admittedly, no reason has been shown by the assessee as to why the plot of land has been sold to her for half of the market rate. Nor any other reason has been shown to the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessment. Even, in spite of specific query, the assessee failed to point out any mistake/lacuna in ascertaining the value of the plot of land by the valuer. In these circumstances, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the assessee has shown less amount in the account books and sale deed than the actual consideration paid. Considering the comparable cases and the facts of the case, we find no ground to interfere in the addition made under section 69B of the Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
