Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Leatherite Industries Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Appeal No. 14 of 1977
Judge
Reported in(1984)40CTR(P& H)79; [1984]147ITR655(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 269C and 269L
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentLeatherite Industries Limited
Appellant Advocate Ashok Bhan and; A.K. Mittal, Advs.
Respondent Advocate R.M. Suri, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - notices of the proceedings were served on the transferor as well as on the transferee......ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the transferee '), for a consideration of rs. 1,78,500, vide sale deed dated december 5, 1973. out of the sale consideration, the transferee paid rs. 10,000 at the time of the agreement and the balance amount of rs. 1,68,500 at the time of execution of the deed by two pay orders issued by the national and grindlays bank.3. the competent authority under the act, on receipt of the information regarding the sale, made a reference under section 269l to the valuation officer, rohtak, for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the property. the valuation officer valued it at rs. 2,20,801. after receipt of the report, he initiated proceedings for acquisition of the property under the act. notices of the proceedings were served on the transferor.....
Judgment:

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Commissioner, Patiala, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dated July 31, 1976.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Kapil Dev Tayal (hereinafter referred to as ' the transferor '), purchased plot No. 67, measuring 5333.33 sq. yards, situated in Sector VI, Faridabad, from the State of Haryana, vide conveyance deed dated November 18, 1970. He constructed a factory shed with asbestos sheets, office block, time office -and boundary walls on it. Later, he sold the plot along with the constructions made by him to M/s. Leatherite Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the transferee '), for a consideration of Rs. 1,78,500, vide sale deed dated December 5, 1973. Out of the sale consideration, the transferee paid Rs. 10,000 at the time of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs. 1,68,500 at the time of execution of the deed by two pay orders issued by the National and Grindlays Bank.

3. The competent authority under the Act, on receipt of the information regarding the sale, made a reference under Section 269L to the Valuation Officer, Rohtak, for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the property. The valuation officer valued it at Rs. 2,20,801. After receipt of the report, he initiated proceedings for acquisition of the property under the Act. Notices of the proceedings were served on the transferor as well as on the transferee. The transferor did not file any objections against the acquisition of the property but the transferee did so. The competent authority came to the conclusion that the fair market value of the property exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent. and that the consideration for the transfer had not been truly stated in the sale deed, with the objects referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C of the Act. He, therefore, passed an order for its acquisition along with the superstructures thereon.

4. The transferee went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which accepted the appeal and reversed the order of the competent authority. The Commissioner has come up in appeal to this court.

5. The only contention of Mr. Ashok Bhan is that the Tribunal illegally excluded from consideration the rates of the plots in D.L.F. Industrial Estate and Sectors 27-A, 27-B, 27-C, and 27-D, Faridabad.

6. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel hut regret our inability to accept the same. In order to determine the price of the land, the instances of sales should be of similar plots of land in similar locality. Mr. Ashok Bhan has fairly admitted that there is nothing on the record to show as to where the D.L.F. Industrial Estate and Sectors 27-A, 27-B, 27-C and 27-D are situated and where Sector VI is situated. He also admits that there is nothing on the record to show that the plots demarcated in the said industrial estate and the sectors were of similar size. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly excluded from consideration the rates of plots in the said estate and the sectors. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that there is no material on the record to hold that the fair market value of the property in question was more than the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The finding is one of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs.


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