9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... August 28, 1974, under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act "). An immovable property bearing No. 18/2 and 18/3 situated at Vanivilas Road, Bangalore City, consisting of a building and site area measuring 80' x 140' was owned by one Smt. K. S. Lalithamma of Bangalore (the transferor). On June 25, 1973, the transferor by two instruments of transfer, transferred different extents of the said property as detailed in the said instruments, to Sriyuths T. V. Viswanatha Gupta and N. Vajram Setty of Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 59,000 and Rs. 81,000 respectively. On an examination of the apparent consideration stipulated in the said instruments, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on December 6, 1973, as required by sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roneous and unjustified. On this contention, the Tribunal disagreed with the conclusion of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and held that the fair market value of the property did not exceed the apparent consideration stipulated in the instruments of transfer. On such conclusion, the Tribunal on February 4, 1975, allowed the appeals of the transferor and the transferees. Hence, these appeals by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 269H of the Act. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, appeared for the appellant. Sri S. P. Bhat, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents. On the contentions urged before us, only one point arises for our determination and that is " Whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mchand v. IAC [1985] 153 ITR 774 (Kar)) has examined all the material evidence bearing on the determination of the fair market value and has come to a conclusion different from the one reached by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. When one reads the order of the Tribunal as a whole, and properly, it is difficult to hold that the Tribunal had not critically examined all the material evidence bearing on the question with due regard to the correct principle of valuation and had reached a different conclusion by a mere reference to them as vehemently contended by Sri Srinivasan. We see no merit in this contention of Sri Srinivasan. What emerges from the above is that the decision of the Tribunal is essentially on a question of fact and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
