Skip to content


Anadi Prakashan Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Appeal No. 319 of 1976
Judge
Reported in(1982)29CTR(MP)323; [1983]144ITR79(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 269C(1), 269C(2), 269G and 269H
AppellantAnadi Prakashan
Respondentinspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.L. Nema, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.K. Rawat, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - this showed that the object was clearly to facilitate the transferor to evade payment of income-tax on the capital gains. in these circumstances, in our opinion, the tribunal was right in holding that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus arising out of the presumption under section 269c(2)(b). 4. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs......argument. the tribunal has stated that by omitting to state the true consideration in the sale deed the transferor intended to avoid payment of tax on capital gains of rs. 35,000. the transferor did not file any return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 for over two years after the initiation of acquisition proceedings. this showed that the object was clearly to facilitate the transferor to evade payment of income-tax on the capital gains. the tribunal has also pointed out that the appellant came with the admission that rs. 90,000 was paid at a much later stage in the proceedings and to begin with an affidavit was filed by one of the partners that only rs. 49,000 was paid. the tribunal has also pointed out that the iac (acquisition) was right in holding that the appellant was.....
Judgment:

G.P. Singh, C.J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the order of the Tribunal dated 31st August, 1976.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant purchased a house situated at Bhopal on 13th February, 1973, by a registered sale deed. The consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 49,000. The Valuation Officer of the I.T. Department valued the property at Rs. 85,600. Proceedings were then taken by the IAC (Acquisition) and he ordered acquisition of the property by his order dated 27th May, 1976. The appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 269G, which was dismissed.

3. We have already stated that the apparent consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 49,000. The fair market value of the property as found by the Valuation Officer was Rs. 85,600. It was also admitted by the parties, i.e., the transferor and the transferee both, before the 3AC that Rs. 90,000 in fact was paid as consideration by the appellant for the purchase of the house. In view of this admitted position, a presumption arose under Section 269C(2)(b) that the true consideration was not stated in the instrument of transfer with the object as is referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 269C(1). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that it is true that a presumption arose under Section 269C(2) that the consideration was not truly stated with the object mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 269C(1) but that the appellant has been able to rebut the presumption by showing that correct entries were made in the books of account. We are unable to accept this argument. The Tribunal has stated that by omitting to state the true consideration in the sale deed the transferor intended to avoid payment of tax on capital gains of Rs. 35,000. The transferor did not file any return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 for over two years after the initiation of acquisition proceedings. This showed that the object was clearly to facilitate the transferor to evade payment of income-tax on the capital gains. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the appellant came with the admission that Rs. 90,000 was paid at a much later stage in the proceedings and to begin with an affidavit was filed by one of the partners that only Rs. 49,000 was paid. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the IAC (Acquisition) was right in holding that the appellant was unable to wholly explain as to the source from where the money was obtained for the purchase. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus arising out of the presumption under Section 269C(2)(b).

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //