TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration for the said transfer was less than the fair market value of the said property. Thereupon the competent authority got the property valued by the official valuer who determined the fair market value of the said property as at the date of sale at Rs. 70,400. The official valuer submitted this valuation in his report dated 17th November, 1973 (sic). On receipt of the said report, the competent authority recorded its reasons under s. 269C of the said Act on the 13th November, 1973, and initiated proceedings under s. 269C for acquisition of the said property. Thereafter a notice under s. 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, also dated the 13th November, 1973, was issued to the transferor, the transferee and the persons in occupation of the property so that objections, if any, could be made against the said acquisition. Both the transferor and the transferee submitted their objections and appeared in the proceedings. After the hearing of the objections, the competent authority was satisfied that the immovable property, the subject-matter of these proceedings, was of a market value exceeding Rs. 25,000 and that such fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct that an appeal should be preferred after obtaining a certified copy. In particular, it is submitted, that in the present case, a copy of the order signed by the competent authority himself bearing his seal was duly served and, therefore, it was not necessary for the respondent to proceed to obtain a certified copy of the same order for the purpose of preferring an appeal. It is contended that the respondent did not apply for condonation of the delay before the Tribunal and as such the appeal is clearly barred by time. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that under r. 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, it was necessary to annex a certified copy of the order appealed from to every memorandum of appeal. The said r. 9 reads as follows: " 9. What to accompany memorandum of appeal.-(1) Every memorandum of appeal shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appealed against and two copies of the order of the Income-tax Officer. (2) The Tribunal may in its discretion accept a memorandum of appeal which is not accompanied by all or any of the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation.-Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section." The Tribunal held that the copy served on the respondent in the instant case could not be stated to be a certified copy within the meaning of s. 76. The respondent received the certified copy on the 16th September, 1975, and filed the appeal next day, that is on the 17th September, 1975, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy. Reading the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (2) the Tribunal held that the appeal had been preferred within time. Mr. B.L. Pal has contended before us that the approach of the Tribunal in relying on and applying s. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act was erroneous. He submitted that the I.T. Act, 1961, was a self-contained Act and had to be understood in its own context. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Pal. It is quite clear that as prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it was necessary for the respondent to submit his memorandum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax department and also bore an endorsement that they had been duly copied and compared they would be held to be certified copies. In our opinion, this decision does not support the case of the revenue, on the contrary supports the case of the respondent. In the instant case, the copy which was made over to the respondent only bore the signature and the seal of the officer concerned and it did not denote any endorsement as to its correctness. There was no endorsement that it was a true copy or that it had been compared wiih the original. For the reasons above, we hold that the copy which was furnished to the respondent initially by the officer concerned was not a certified copy. We further hold that it was necessary for the respondent to obtain a certified copy in order to prefer an appeal in the prescribed form. Therefore, the time required for the respondent to obtain the certified copy must be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Consequently, we hold that the appeal preferred by the respondent to the Tribunal was not barred by limitation. On the merits, Mr. B. L. Pal submitted that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the appropriate method for determination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, on August 9, 1974, that is more than one year after the purchase, whereby the tenant was ejected was of no consequence. Similarly, the fact that when the respondent purchased the property he was assured by the people of the locality and the broker that the tenant would be ejected was also of no relevance because the property had to be valued on the date of the purchase when the tenant and the sub-tenant were very much in possession of the said property. There can be no comparison of the transaction in the present case with the transaction in respect of another property at 4, Akrur Dutta Lane, as was relied upon by the official valuer. In that case, the fair market value of the property was found to be over Rs. 62,000. But no particulars are available of the said property, except that the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 20,000 per cottah and the life of the building was taken as 15 years. It is not known what the total area of land in the property was, nor is it known what the size of the building was and how much rent was being realised, also whether the said building was fully tenanted or not. Mr. Roy contended on the facts as aforesaid that the proper method of valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has, therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under section 4 of the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. The sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market value. This, however, is not the only method. The rent which an owner was actually receiving at the relevant point of time or the rent which the neighbouring lands of similar nature are fetching can be taken into account by capitalising the rent which according to the present prevailing rate of interest is 20 times the annual rent. But this also is not a conclusive method. This court had in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty [1959] Suppl 1 SCR 404; AIR 1959 SC 429 indicated at page 412 the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of the notification under s. 4(1) which are : (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch method. The official valuer has added up 2 items, one capitalised value for 10 years on rental method-Rs. 11,948 and the other is deferred value of the land and old building at Rs. 66,320. This method is equally incomprehensible to us. We are concerned with the present value of the property. This present value may be calculated on the basis of the property as it stands today or it can be calculated in appropriate circumstances to be the future value as estimated today. There is no question of adding up the valuation arrived at by rental method with any deferred value. The fact that the respondent paid more than the amount which could be arrived at by valuing the rental method is a relevant consideration, but cannot determine the matter finally one way or the other. The observation of the Tribunal that the extra amount was paid by the respondent on the basis of prospects for further development is an observation which is based on little evidence. We have already noted, the available land was almost entirely built up and there was little scope for further development. It may be that the respondent was an optimistic purchaser and on the assurance of the broker that the tenants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
