Fact findings on valuation and distress sale are beyond section 269H interference in income-tax acquisition disputes.

In an appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to questions of law and it cannot reappreciate Tribunal findings on depreciation, market value, or whether a sale was a distress sale. The Tribunal's factual conclusions that the building merited depreciation, the declared consideration was not unduly low, and undervaluation with intent to evade tax was not proved were treated as conclusive. On that basis, the statutory presumption under section 269C(2)(b) did not assist the Revenue, and the acquisition order remained set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere under section 269H with the Tribunal's findings on depreciation, market value, and the character of the sale; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the acquisition order on the basis of factual findings and the inapplicability of the statutory presumption under section 269C(2)(b).

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere under section 269H with the Tribunal's findings on depreciation, market value, and the character of the sale.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under section 269H is confined to questions of law. The determination of depreciation attributable to an old building, the market value of the property on the date of sale, and whether the transaction was a distress sale are matters of fact. Where the Tribunal has recorded findings on these factual matters, the High Court cannot reappreciate them in appeal under section 269H.

Conclusion: No interference was permissible on these factual issues.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the acquisition order on the basis of factual findings and the inapplicability of the statutory presumption under section 269C(2)(b).

Analysis: The Tribunal based its decision on factual conclusions that the building deserved depreciation, that the declared consideration for the land was not unduly low, and that the sale was a distress sale. It also held that the difference between the departmental valuation and the sale consideration was below the statutory threshold and that the Revenue had not established undervaluation with intent to evade tax. These were findings of fact on which the appellate court could not substitute its own view.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was upheld and the acquisition order remained set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the dispute turned entirely on factual findings beyond the scope of interference under section 269H.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the High Court will not interfere with the Tribunal's findings on matters of fact such as valuation, depreciation, or whether a sale was a distress sale, and a factual conclusion setting aside acquisition for want of proved undervaluation cannot be disturbed as if it were a question of law.

---