TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement itself when possession of the property was also handed over to the petitioners. Balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000 was paid on execution of the deed of conveyance on November 4, 1981. Sale deed was lodged for registration on November 7, 1981, but was registered only on November 20,1985. On January 28, 1987, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Competent Authority stating that they had learnt that some notice stated to be a notice of acquisition was affixed on the suit premises which they had not seen the Competent Authority was requested, to serve a notice upon them if there was any such notice. In response thereto, the Competent Authority served on the petitioners on January 31, 1987, a copy of the notice under section 269D(1) d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. Moreover, the draft copy of the affidavit-in-reply with Dr. Balasubramanian bears neither any date nor month. The year shown is 1987. Ordinarily, it is not possible to accept Dr. Balasubramanian's contention that the same must have been filed. Since, however, the draft copy does not also contain much, it may be assumed to have been filed. In view of this court's judgment in the case of Unique associates Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 114, the conditions requisite for exercise of powers under section 269C/269D of the Act are to be taken-(i) immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 is transferred ; (ii) the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration by more than 15% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Gazette was not available to the public during that period of nine months was on the petitioners which burden was, admittedly, not discharged. The petitioners having made a categorical averment in the petition (vide paragraph 11) to this effect, according to Shri Dastur, it was for the Revenue to specifically deny the averment. This is not done. Secondly, the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette is given to them by Dr. Balasubramanian for the first time during the course of the hearing. In the circumstances, it is, naturally, not possible for the petitioners to ascertain and then establish that the particular Official Gazette was not available to the public within time. This court, in the case of All India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e months. However, in view of the conclusion of the court on the other issue, the court refrains from expressing itself finally on this issue. The Competent Authority has, while specifying the object of understatement, admittedly retained the words "and/or" between the two objects mentioned in section 269C(1). Ordinarily, it would mean that the Competent Authority was not sure, at the time of the issue of notice, as to the object of understating the consideration in the sale deed, i.e., whether that was done with object (a) or (b) or both. It may be, as pointed out by Dr. Balasubramanian, that, at the stage of enquiry, it is difficult for the Competent Authority to be sure about the object of the petitioners' understating the value in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the sale consideration is Rs. 17,00,000. For the second condition, the material on record is three sale instances which are of the years 1984 and 1985. Observing that the average sale price per square yard in those cases worked out to Rs. 1,900, the Competent Authority assumed that, the sale in this case being in the year 1981, the reasonable market price would be half of the same, i.e., Rs. 950 per square yard. Firstly, there is nothing to indicate that the sale instances were of comparable lands. Assuming they were so, there is no material justifying the Competent Authority's taking 50% of the average market value of the year 1984-85 to be the fair market value of similar land in the year 1981. This appears to be mere conjecture. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, there could not be any justification for the vendors' selling the suit property at a concessional rate so that it must be assumed that some consideration must have passed between the parties beyond what was stated in the sale deed, Dr. Balasubramanian was not able to show any material which could even remotely satisfy this condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction. As stated by me earlier, the presumption under sub-section (2) is not available for the assumption of jurisdiction under section 269C. If that presumption is not available, there has got to be some material. Since, admittedly, there is no material to suggest that any amount was paid by the petitioners to the vendors over and above the consideration stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
