2004 (1) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Reverses Property Acquisition: Lack of Evidence in Tax Case

The Appellate Tribunal reversed the acquisition order in an appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the property at 7, Court ... Tribunal reversed order made by the competent authority – sale of property – valuation - It was admitted before the Tribunal that there was no sale instance of such a big parcel of land on record and, therefore, merely on the basis of the circulars, the fair market value cannot be arrived at. The Tribunal also observed that it was a case of a sale by an income-tax and wealth-tax assessee against whom huge tax liabilities were outstanding and who sold the property after submitting a copy of the proposed sale deed to the Income-tax Department and after obtaining tax clearance - Tribunal held that from the material on record, it was not proved that the fair market value of the property in question as on the date of transfer was more than 15% of the consideration shown in the instrument of transfer. - As correctly stated by the Tribunal, one cannot compare the price of a plot admeasuring 367 sq. yards with a plot admeasuring 15,666 sq. yards – Revenue appeal dismissed Issues:Appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the acquisition of property at 7, Court Road, Delhi.Analysis:The case involved an appeal filed by the Income-tax Commissioner (Appeals) under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Acquisition Appeal No. 6 of 1986. The matter pertained to the acquisition of property located at 7, Court Road, Delhi. The agreement to sell the property was executed on February 12, 1975, for a consideration of Rs. 15,03,500, with a subsequent sale deed executed on November 1, 1975. Discrepancies arose in the valuation of the property, with the fair market value assessed at Rs. 81,90,800 by the inspector and Rs. 26,37,000 by the Valuation Officer. This led to the initiation of acquisition proceedings as the assessed values exceeded the apparent consideration by over 15%. The competent authority determined the property's value at Rs. 60,61,000 on December 15, 1978, and Rs. 22,95,000 on February 12, 1975, resulting in an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which subsequently reversed the acquisition order.The Tribunal observed that the competent authority failed to investigate potential tax avoidance schemes and could not establish the comparability of the property with leased lands in the vicinity. It was noted that the circulars relied upon by the Revenue were of a general nature and insufficient for determining the property's value accurately. The absence of sale instances for a large parcel of land and the involvement of income-tax and wealth-tax assesses in the transaction raised concerns. The Tribunal highlighted the unique circumstances of the case, including the formation of a society for purchasing the property and the rarity of buyers for such large and expensive plots. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of complying with municipal regulations for developing such extensive land parcels and the lack of evidence regarding government-leased plots and development conditions. Due to the absence of concrete data and actual transactions, the Tribunal concluded that the fair market value of the property could not be ascertained beyond a 15% margin of the declared consideration.The Tribunal's decision was further supported by the lack of comparable instances for such substantial land plots, with the sizes of available sale instances significantly smaller than the subject property. The Tribunal's reasoning emphasized the impracticality of comparing prices for vastly different land sizes, highlighting the unique nature of transactions involving large land parcels intended for specific uses like housing or commercial complexes. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the material on record failed to establish the property's fair market value exceeding 15% of the declared consideration, thereby upholding the reversal of the acquisition order.