High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Ruhi Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Section 269D
V.K. Bali & Jasbir Singh, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 1 to 6 of 1990
11th August, 2003
Counsel Appeared :
A.S. Tewatia, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J. :
By this common order, we propose to dispose of six connected income-tax appeals bearing Nos. 1 to 6 of 1990, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention here, however, have been extracted from Appeal No. 1 of 1990 titled CIT, vs. Unitech Builder (P) Ltd.
2. This appeal has been filed under s. 269H of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi, whereby the property under acquisition has been released by the said Tribunal vide order dt. 21st May, 1990. The Dy. CIT, Acquisition, Rohtak Range, on the basis of screening of Form No. 37-G forwarded by the sub-Registrar, Gurgaon, noticed that land measuring 159 kanal, 7 marlas situate at village Jharsa, Tehsil Gurgaon was transferred by Smt. Kaushlya, widow of Kailash Chand, to M/s Unitech Investment (P) Ltd., 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 46,80,906 vide sale deed registered at serial No. 1263 dt. 5th June, 1986. The property was referred to the Government Valuation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the GVO), who through his report No. DVO/CHD/8687/2A/247/234 and 264/2347 dt. 8th Sept., 1986, determined the fair market value at Rs. 83,83,200 as against the apparent consideration of Rs. 46,80,906. Thereupon, notice under s. 269D(1) of the Act of 1961 was published in the Official Gazette on 1st Nov., 1986, and served upon the transferee and the transferor in due course of time. On receipt of notice aforesaid, the transferee replied to the notice on a variety of grounds, which have since been noticed by the Dy. CIT, Acquisition, and need not be reiterated in this respect. On consideration of the matter and while relying upon the report from the GVO, the Dy. CIT vide order dt. 21st/23rd March, 1989, recorded his findings as follows : (a) the immovable property to which the proceedings relate is of a fair market value exceeding one hundred thousand rupees; (b) the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than fifteen per cent of such apparent consideration; and (c) the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as is referred to in cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 269C. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which has since been allowed vide impugned order dt. 21st May, 1990.
3. It is not disputed that the Dy. CIT passed the order, the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal, on the basis of the report of the GVO. The Tribunal, in fact, has quoted the relevant part of the order passed by the Dy. CIT, which would clearly show that the primary reliance placed by the concerned officer was upon the report of the GVO. It would be appropriate to reproduce part of the order that has been mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The same reads thus : “In IT Acq. No. 2/Del/1989 while determining the fair market value the competent authority determined the same on following basis : In this case, the DVO, Chandigarh, has applied the land rate of Rs. 122 per sq. mt. and the Valuation Officer, Rohtak, had applied a rate of Rs. 109 per sq. mt. in other cases of the transferee (in F. No. GRG 418/85-86 and GRG 419/85-86), the land rate adopted by the Valuation Officer, Rohtak, is considered as reasonable. The DVO has erred in increasing the land rate by 10 per cent for better location. As discussed in the order, the land of the transferee is situated in less developed area as compared to the land of the sale instances. The fair market value of the property is recomputed as under : Rs. Less : Apparent consideration 18,60,000 Difference between the FMV and the apparent consideration. 13,20,261
This gives a difference of 70.9 per cent between the FMV and the apparent consideration.” It has further been noticed in the appellate order that the Dy. CIT determined the rates on the basis of valuation determined in GRG 418/85-86 and GRG 419/85-86. In these two matters, the proceedings were dropped by the competent authority itself. Once, the matters, on the basis of which orders were passed in the present case by the Dy. CIT, were dropped, the very basis of the impugned order challenged before the Tribunal, ceased to exist. That apart, it could not be disputed, during the course of arguments, that the case could not be based exclusively upon the report of the GVO. The Tribunal has also returned a finding that examination of records would reveal that the competent authority recorded its satisfaction in view of the provisions contained in ss. 269C and 269F(6) of the Act of 1961, yet, there was no specific order for the acquisition of the property under consideration. The findings of the Tribunal, as mentioned above, could not be challenged during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, we are satisfied, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
[Citation : 267 ITR 455]
