Tenant-occupied property valuation must reflect existing rental reality; future redevelopment potential cannot override rent-control constraints.

Valuation of a tenant-occupied property for acquisition under Chapter XX-A must reflect its existing condition, with capitalisation of rental income serving as the proper guide where rent-control and tenancy restrictions apply. Future potential for conversion or redevelopment may be considered only to a limited extent and cannot justify treating the property as if it were vacant and fully developed. On the facts discussed, the departmental method based on assumptions of vacant commercial use was not a safe basis for finding substantial under-valuation, and the stated consideration was not shown to be unreal on reliable material.

---

---

Issues: Whether acquisition of the property under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the ground that the apparent consideration was substantially below the fair market value, and whether in valuing a tenant-occupied property its future potential for conversion and redevelopment could be taken into account.

Analysis: The property was sold with tenants in occupation and subject to rent-control constraints. In such circumstances, the proper guide for valuation was the capitalisation of rental income rather than a land-and-building or developmental method based on vacant possession. While future potentiality of the property, including a reasonably probable change of user, could not be ignored altogether, that factor could not justify valuing the property as though it were already vacant and fully developed when the factual position was otherwise. The departmental valuation, founded largely on assumptions of vacant commercial use and redevelopment, did not provide a safe basis for concluding that the sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000 was unreal. On the facts, the material did not establish an under-valuation sufficient to attract acquisition under Chapter XX-A.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were not sustainable and the order quashing the acquisition was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the tenant-occupied property had to be valued on a realistic rental basis in the prevailing circumstances, and the stated consideration was not shown to be so understated as to warrant acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: For acquisition under Chapter XX-A, valuation of a property in tenant occupation must rest on a realistic method appropriate to its existing condition, and future potentiality cannot be used to ignore the effect of tenants and rent-control restrictions unless the understatement of consideration is otherwise established on reliable material.

---