High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Coral Chemicals (P) Ltd.`
Sections 269A(d), 269F, 269H
Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 1 of 1986
18th December, 2001
R.P. Sawhney with Naresh Gopal Sharma, for the Appellant : S.K. Pipat with Rishi Kaushal, Naresh Kaushal and Sanjiv Pandit, for the Respondent
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. :
The Revenue has filed this appeal under s. 269H of the IT Act, 1961. The admitted facts may be briefly noticed.
2. On 13th Aug., 1981, the factory building in dispute was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 4,11,000 to M/s S.K. Chaudhary & Orsâthe partners of M/s Bharat National Industrial Corporation. B-6, Mayapuri, Phase II, New Delhi. Proceedings under s. 269C of the Act were initiated. However, it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs. 4,08,695. Thus, the proceedings were dropped by the Revenue. On 13th Dec., 1983, this property was sold by M/s S.K. Chaudhary etc. to the respondent viz. M/s Coral Chemicals (P) Ltd., New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 5,05,000. The proceedings under s. 269C of the Act were again initiated. On 20th March, 1985, the IAC passed an order under s. 269F (6) for the acquisition of the property. He held that the actual value of the property was Rs. 9,25,400. Since the difference between the actual and the apparent value was more than 15 per cent, he ordered the acquisition of the property under s. 269F(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed an appeal. The Tribunal having accepted the assesseeâs claim, the Revenue has approached this Court through the present appeal under s. 269H of the Act.
3. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the provisions of s. 269C(2) of the Act. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the Revenue has been controverted by Pipat, learned counsel for the assessee.
4. After consideration of the matter we find that the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence which had been produced by the parties. It has been noticed that there were two evaluation reports. According to the report of the official valuer, the market value of the property on the date of transfer was not less than Rs. 9,25,400. According to the approved valuer produced by the assessee, the market value of the property on the crucial date was not more than 4,96,000. There was apparently a substantial difference in the value assessed by the two valuers. How and why ?
5. On an examination of the reports, the Tribunal has found that according to the official valuer, the market value of the land was Rs. 1,76,055. As against this, the approved valuer had assessed the value of land at Rs. 1,24,423.
The Tribunal has accepted the assessment made by the approved valuer for the reason that it was supported by “comparable sale instances”. Similarly, the value of the building was estimated by the official valuer at Rs.12,13,504. On this he had allowed a depreciation of Rs. 4,64,165. Thus, the building was assessed at Rs. 7,49,339. As against this, the valuer produced by the assessee had found that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The depreciation should have been allowed at Rs. 7,89,404. The Tribunal after examination of the evidence produced by the parties found that the official valuer had assessed the value by ignoring the fact that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs. 2,52,923.14 on renovation upto the date of inspection of the property by the Government valuer. Similarly, various other discrepancies have also been noticed. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal is based on evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties. It has not been even suggested that the evidence produced by the Revenue has not been considered. Equally, it is not the case of the Revenue that the relevant evidence had been misread. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter has taken a possible view. It is not shown to be perverse or such as no reasonable person could have taken. Since the findings are based on consideration of the evidence, we find that there is no infirmity of law which may call for interference in this appeal.
6. Another aspect of the matter which deserves notice is that it is the admitted position that the property had been purchased by the assesseeâs vendor for an amount of Rs. 4,11,000 on 13th Aug., 1981. It was sold to the respondents after about two years for Rs. 5,05,000. Its value could not have shot up from Rs. 4,11,000 to Rs.
9,25,400 in this short span of time. There is no evidence on the file which may even remotely suggest that there was more than 100 per cent increase in the value of property from August, 1981 to December, 1993. Still further, the proceedings under s. 269C were initiated against the respondentsâ vendor as well. However, these were dropped after it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs. 4,08,695. If the property was correctly valued at Rs. 4,08,695 in August, 1981, then in the absence of concrete evidence it cannot be said that the Revenue was right in claiming that the actual value in December, 1983 was Rs. 9,25,400.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. It calls for no interference by this Court under s. 269H of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Citation : 257 ITR 611]