TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see relied upon the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Grover Vs. Appropriate Authority 223 ITR 572, and Hon'ble Jurisdictiional High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd in 240 ITE 424, CIT Vs. R.Jawahr, 217 ITR 59, CIT Vs. R.Damodaran 247 ITR 697 and Hon'ble Rajsasthan High Court in Krishnakumar Rawat VS. UOI in 214 ITR 610(Rajasthan) and the case of Jawajee Naganathan Vs. R.D.O AIR 1994 SC 2852. The crux of the argument is that ld. First Appellate Authority erred in confirming the valuation, as on 01.04.1981, based on guide lines value. On the other hand, the ld.DR Shri B.Sagadevan strongly defended the impugned order by contending that the matter may be sent back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to consider the arguments of the assessee and the valuation as on 1.4.1981. 3. Before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider decisions, relied upon, before us. One such decisions is from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd.(surpa) wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- "14. Both the properties in question, namely, at No. 10, First Avenue, Har-rington Road, Chetput and at No. 1, Seco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the construction to be made by the petitioners on lot 'B'. It is submitted that Rs. 10 lakhs only represented the cost of construction. The objection must be sustained. The appropriate authority has treated the proposed construction as a 'thing' within the meaning of Section 269UA(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). It should have addressed its mind to the market value of such construction on the date of the agreement. It has not." 16. A perusal of the relevant provisions would clearly show that where an order for the purchase of any immovable property is made under Section 269UD(1) of the Act, the Central Government shall pay, by way of consideration for such purchase, an amount equal to the amount of the apparent consideration. In such a circumstance, the question of fulfilling the promises as per the agreement does not arise. In terms of Section 269UM, the transferee cannot make any claim against the transferor by reason of such transfer being not in accordance with the agreement for the transfer of the immovable property entered into. Accordingly, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 17. Now I shall consider the sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into and similar other objective factors. The valuation, therefore, has to be done by a method which is more objective and could furnish reliable data to arrive at a just conclusion. As already stated, the market rates notified by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration cannot be a proper guide for valuation in respect of preemptive purchase. 18. Appropriate authority has referred to two sale instances in the past in the vicinity of the said property which are relevant and comparable. The details of two sale instances as mentioned in the show-cause notice as well as in the impugned order of the appropriate authority are stated hereunder : Sl. No. Date of agree-ment Description of the properly Rate perground for land Modified rate as on the date of agreementallowing 1 per cent. p.m. 28.2.96 No. 6, II Avenue, HarringtonRoad, Chennai. Land : 5.500 sq. ft. (2.29 grds) Bldg : About 3,200 sq. ft. (double storeyed) (i) Rs. 64,13,000 considering depreciated cost for building (i) Rs. 72,46,690 Year of construction-1962 Frontage-15.25 mtrs. Road width-12.19 mtrs. Residential area. Transferee : Sri M. Avais Murvee and two others. D. No. 2, Kothari Roa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scription of the property Land rateper ground1. 5-8-95 D. No. 2, II Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Rs. 21,00,000 Land : 10,797,33 sq. ft. out of 13,464 sq. ft. Apparent consideration : Rs. 99,00,000 Discounted consideration : Rs. 94,49,011 Transferee : Mrs. Geetha Kumar, No. 55, RukmaniRoad, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai. 10-11-95 D. No. 19. I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Rs.34,61,000 Land : 12,960 sq. ft. Apparent considerationRs.1,95,00,000 Discounted consideration Rs. 1,87,88,190Transferee : Dev Apartments, Adyar, Chennai. 20. It is clear that the land rate reflected in the case of the property at door No. 1, Second Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai, is Rs. 43,64,000 which indicates an appreciation of more than 1 per cent, per month. Here again, the appropriate authority have allowed 1 per cent, per month on the consecutive side for updating the land value. 21. It is also clear that with regard to the first sale instance, "no objection certificate" has been issued for Rs. 1,50,00,000 which is also reflected in page 1 of the sale deed document No. 890 of 1996, the purchaser having paid and the seller having accepted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Development Authority and considered the claim of the petitioner. In the light of the detailed discussions by the appropriate authority based on acceptable materials, though learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to various decisions regarding fixation of market value and other aspects, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the same. Further it is settled law that when the facts are clear, there is no need to refer decisions for those aspects. 22. Finally, as rightly contended by learned senior Central Government standing counsel, this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot scrutinise the matter like an appeal. It is settled law that judicial review is limited only to the extent of examining as to whether any finding is perverse or there is non-application of mind or the order is contrary to the established principles of law. This court is not sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the appropriate authority and the satisfaction has to be arrived at by the appropriate authority on the basis of the valuation report and the relevant documents which have been taken into consideration. Further, it is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 145 per sq. ft., whereas the land rate for the suit transaction worked out to Rs. 225 per sq. ft. Further, it was pointed out by the petitioner in her reply to the show-cause notice that there was encroachment upon some portion of the suit land regarding which a dispute was going on and for which reason its market value would be lower than its real market value. The plea was also raised that since there were two co-owners, i. e., the beneficiaries, the share of each would be less than Rs. 10,00,000 and as such the provisions of compulsory purchase in Chapter XX-C of the Act would not be attracted to the instant sale transaction. Along with the reply to the show-cause notice the petitioner had also submitted documentary evidence in the shape of a valuation report and certain sale deeds to show that the suit transaction was for fair market value. It was also pointed out in her reply to the show-cause notice by the petitioner that before issuing the show-cause notice, the Appropriate Authority must come to the tentative or prima facie view that the property was undervalued and that it should incorporate in its show-cause notice the material or the reasons on the basis of which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the area of the land agreed to be sold was 4,839.5 sq. ft. out of plot No. 2 in Shri Vallabh Co-operative Housing Society, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Its apparent consideration was Rs. 15,00,000 and the discounted rate per sq. ft. worked out was Rs. 304.20 with permissible FSI of 1. Since the property in the sale instance was sold one year two months earlier than the suit property, considering the 12 per cent increase in the land rate per annum, the rate of the land in the sale instance was worked out to Rs. 348 per sq. ft. As the difference was thus more than 15 per cent in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautam (supra), the Appropriate Authority was of the view that the suit land was significantly undervalued and there was thus a case for its pre-emptive purchase. As regards the case of the petitioner based upon the land the land rate maintained by the Nagpur Corporation and the stamp authorities, the Appropriate Authority rejected the said case on the ground that its main object was other than determining the market rate. As regards the two sale instances dt. 23rd Nov., 1989, and 23rd Nov., 1991, pointed out by the petitioner as comparable sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, claimed in her written submissions that if the impugned order of compulsory purchase passed by the Appropriate Authority is affirmed, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to pay interest to her at 20 per cent per annum and in case the said impugned order of the Appropriate Authority is set aside, the petitioner should be directed to pay her the interest at the rate of 24 per cent, per annum particularly when, according to her, there is an interim stay of the impugned order of the Appropriate Authority granted by us pending decision in the instant writ petition as a result of which she cannot get the balance of the consideration either from the respondents or the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before us : (i) That since there are two co-owners of the suit land, viz., the two beneficiaries the share of each is below Rs. 10,00,000, and, therefore, the provisions of compulsory purchase in Chapter XX-C of the Act are not attracted. (ii) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the case of the Appropriate Authority for pre-emptive purchase of the suit property since the material or the informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in their return. The submission on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the above facts is that since Shri Satish Kale was the owner of the adjoining plot and since he was benefited by the increase in FSI he paid higher value for purchase of the area admeasuring 4,839.5 sq. ft. of plot No. 2. The said purchase by him, therefore, according to the petitioner does not reflect the true and fair market value of the said land. The above submission made on behalf of the petitioners is well founded. In assessing the value of the land, its special value to an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage is a factor which has to be taken into consideration, because such a buyer is likely to pay a higher price for the said land than a prudent buyer would otherwise pay. The above factor is, therefore, recognised as a plus factor in favour of the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act in determining its market value. (see para 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofChimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer ). In the instant case as rightly urged on behalf of the petitioner there is a special advantage to the owner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the above sale instance for determining the question whether the valuation of the suit land is grossly understated. At any rate when such a hypothetical rate of appreciation is taken, some allowance has to be made while applying the test of difference of 15 per cent or more for probable errors while determining the question whether the suit land is grossly undervalued or not. It has to be borne in mind that even as per the circular styled as Instruction No. 1/A 88 of the CBDT referred to in C. B. Gautam's case (supra), and the affidavit filed on behalf of the said Board in the said case, the main objective of Chapter XX-C of the Act is to check proliferation of black money in real estate transactions and to enforce declaration of the true market value of the immovable property in question which is the subject-matter of transfer between the parties so as to prevent evasion of taxes. The said instructions further show that the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act are not intended to harass bona fide and honest purchasers or sellers of immovable properties. Para 3 of the said instructions, in particular, shows that it is only for good reasons that the right of pre-emptive pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the petitioner on the ground that there is considerable time gap, the sale instance dt. 26th Dec., 1990, relied upon by it is also much prior to the sale transaction in question in the instant case which is dt. 24th Feb., 1992. Although, as we have held above, there is no material to show how the appreciation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is given to the transaction in the sale instance for the time gap between it and the sale transaction of the suit land, there is no reason why similar or at any rate some appropriate increases should not have been given by the Appropriate Authority to the land rate in the transaction in the above sale instance dt. 23rd Nov., 1989, for its comparison with the suit transaction as it had done in the case of the sale instance relied upon by it. The finding of the Appropriate Authority that there is a considerable time gap between the aforesaid sale instance dt. 23rd Nov., 1989, and the suit transaction and, therefore, the said sale transaction dt. 23rd Nov., 1989, cannot be taken as a comparable sale transaction is clearly arbitrary and perverse. Since the sale instance dt. 23rd Nov., 1989, was from the Civil Lines area of Nagpur itself, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r because in the sale instance relied upon by it, the purchaser of the land was the owner of an adjoining land who was to benefit by the purchase of the said land by getting a higher FSI for the land, in which case, he was most likely to pay a price which was more than the market value of the land purchased by him. The Appropriate Authority should have in all fairness rejected the said transaction as not being a comparable sale transaction as it has done in regard to the above sale transaction in relation to the tenant in occupation relied upon by the petitioners. It is, however, pertinent to see that the sale agreement in the second sale instance is dt. 23rd Nov., 1991, which is very proximate in point of time to the suit transaction which is dt. 24th Feb., 1992, i. e., just after about three months. The said sale instance is about the plot in Civil Lines, Nagpur, itself which is close to the suit land. Its area is 7,500 sq. ft. and the consideration for its sale is Rs. 14,00,000. The land rate worked out by the valuer for the above second sale instance is Rs. 186.66 per sq. ft. It is pertinent to see that the valuer has actually given the rate of Rs. 210 per sq. ft. to the suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Civil Lines itself. The said land has a prime location as it is on the main road. If the said land is sold at the rate of Rs. 175 per sq. ft., it is difficult to see how in one year's time, i. e., on 26th Dec., 1990, when the sale agreement of the land in the sale instance relied upon by the Appropriate Authority has taken place, the discounted rate would shoot up to Rs. 304.20 per sq. ft. This would thus clearly demonstrate that for his own benefit, i. e., to get more FSI the owner of the adjoining land has offered a higher rate for purchasing the land in the sale instance relied upon by the Appropriate Authority. For this reason also the sale instance relied upon by the Appropriate Authority cannot be said to reflect the true market value of the land therein, i. e., the land purchased by Shri Satish Kale from Shri Vallabh Co-operative Housing Society, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 13. There is another angle to the question of the alleged undervaluation of the suit property which should have been looked into properly by the Appropriate Authority. The petitioner who was the purchaser of the suit land was aware of the fact that there was encroachment of the owner of the adjoining p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not compare with the suit transaction, the parties to the transaction are required to suffer because of the delay in completion of that transaction caused by the Court proceedings. The Appropriate Authority must keep in mind the instructions issued by the CBDT referred to above in which the object of compulsory purchase of the immovable properties, which is pointed out, is to prevent proliferation of black money in real estate transactions and evasion of taxes by gross undervaluation of the immovable property in question. It is, therefore, necessary that recourse to compulsory purchase of the immovable property in question under Chapter XX-C of the Act should be taken only in clear cases of gross undervaluation from which the inference must clearly flow that it is done for evasion of taxes. 14. As regards the principles relating to the comparable sale instances, the said principles are well settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of market value of the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act which principles can usefully be resorted to in determination of the question of gross undervaluation of the market value of the property in questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in that regard and hence there is non-compliance with the basic principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice issued by the Department for pre-emptive purchase by the Central Government under Chapter XX-C of the Act must disclose how the tentative or prima facie conclusion is arrived at by the Appropriate Authority that the property sought to be compulsorily purchased is significantly undervalued, which means that if any particular sale instance (s) is/are relied upon to show how the property in question is significantly under-valued, it is necessary for the Appropriate Authority to refer to the said details in the show-cause notice so that the transferor and/or the transferee have real and proper opportunity to meet the case of the Department. It is necessary to see that issuing a show-cause notice is not merely an empty formality which is incorporated in s. 269UD(1) of the Act to save it from its invalidity but the opportunity to show cause has to be real and substantial which means that the transferor and the transferee concerned must know as to why the Appropriate Authority is holding that their immovable property under the agreement of sale is significantly undervalued.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmine whether the property in question is grossly undervalued or not. When it does so and reaches a prima facie view within the time frame upon the above question of gross-undervaluation, the time restraint in taking action under s. 269UD cannot be a reason for not disclosing the said material in the show-cause notice which is a must in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam's case (supra). 18. As regards the other reason given by the respondents for dispensing with the requirement of giving reason(s) or material in the show-cause notice on the basis of which a prima facie or tentative conclusion is reached by the Appropriate Authority that the property in question is grossly undervalued, viz., that the enquiry contemplated by the Supreme Court before taking action under s. 269UD(1) of the Act is summary or a limited enquiry, it may be seen that when the principles of natural justice are engrafted upon s. 269UD(1) of the Act, its basic requirement, as hereinbefore referred to, is that the transferor and the transferee must have a fair and proper opportunity to meet the case of the Department about the undervaluation of their property in question and to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by us above, it cannot be held that the Appropriate Authority has proved by clear and cogent material on record that the suit land is significantly undervalued, which is a criteria laid down by the Supreme Court for compulsory purchase of immovable property under s. 269UD of the Act in C. B. Gautam's case (supra). The impugned order of the Appropriate Authority cannot thus be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the above view, which we have taken, it is not necessary for us to decide the other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, viz., whether the provisions of compulsory purchase in Chapter XX-C of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the instant case since the share of each of the two beneficiaries, i. e., transferors is below Rs. 10,00,000 which requirement for compulsory purchase under the said Chapter is laid down in r. 48K of the IT Rules, 1962. 22. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has urged before us that, if the show-cause notice given to the parties is defective, the proceedings should be remanded to the Appropriate Authority for a fresh enquiry and decision according to law after a proper show-cause notice is given to the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nagar, near Durgapura Station, sold by the Jaipur Development Authority on November, 7, 1992, at Rs. 1,781 per. sq. metre was taken. Adjustment of five per cent. on account of less development of the plot and ten per cent. on account of general condition of the plot was given and 12 per cent. was added on account of the time gap. On the basis of the rate of Rs. 1,692 per sq. metres, the value of the land of 7,943 sq. metres was calculated at Rs. 1,34,39,556. The petitioner was asked as to why the order for per-emptive purchase under section 269UD be not made and the case was fixed for March 21, 1994. Objections were submitted by the vendor as well as the petitioner that 40 per cent. of the land would be required to be left for amenities like parks and roads besides the cost of development of roads, electricity, water supply, etc. The sub-division has not been effected. It was also stated that the market price of the land in Durgapura notified by the sub-Registrar as on April 1, 1991, for the first category has been fixed at Rs. 550 an the second category at Rs. 450; and if 12 per cent. is added, it would come to Rs. 690 per sq. metre. This is besides the various objections mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be taken into consideration besides the fact that it would take around 12 months to develop the property over which at least Rs. 18 lakhs would have to be deducted on account interest alone. Possession has been taken only of land covered under godowns and the open area is said to be under the co-ownership of Smt. Krishna Kumari. The final agreement with the co-owner has not been arrived as yet, and there can be a change of site also. No notice was issued for treating the property as a commercial property. The value of the godown was also not mentioned in the notice issued. The grievance of the petitioner is also that they were given only ten days time for filing the reply and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. A reasonable opportunity as directed by the apex court has also not been given. The notice was received on March 11, 1994, and there was a strike by Government staff from March 16, 1994, to April 3 1994, and therefore, the copies of similar sale transactions could not be obtained. The action of the appropriate authority has been challenged on the ground that there was no material available with the Department to the effect that there was any evasio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 4, 1992, and if 12 per cent. is added for the time-gap, it comes to Rs. 2,016 per sq. metre and the total cost of this land comes to Rs. 21.93 lakhs from which deduction for demolition an interest charges should be given. I have considered the arguments of both learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection which has been taken by learned counsel for the respondents is that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner and the vendor have contravened the provision of the Act by transferring the property before any permission could have been given by the appropriate authority and for which reliance has been placed on the decision given by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. v. Union of India [1995] 213 ITR 443 (D.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 3426 of 1991) decided on April 22, 1994. It is observed that so far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the respondents are to blame themselves. By none of the orders of the court, were the respondents restrained from taking any action if they were legally entitled. The decision relied on by learned counsel is not on the proposition that in such a situation, the writ petition is not maintai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present case cannot be said to be not a reasonable one. The appropriate authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the transferor has assured the purchaser that the property sold is free from all encumbrances and the responsibility to get the land partitioned was also undertaken; the fact of conversion was also stated. There are residential colonies adjoining the present land. As per cost of construction on the basis of norms applicable in the case of CPWD structures the value of godown was estimated at Rs. 42 lakhs. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fact that the future of Rs. 42 lakhs was not mentioned in the notice does not vitiate the order because, even the cost of land itself was considered as more than the apparent consideration shown in the agreement and the fact that the cost of the godown has to be separately considered was also mentioned in the notice. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cost of removal of the debris will be more than the cost of the structure was rejected. This conclusion of the appropriate authority is also correct as the petitioner has himself stated in the petition that the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion charges in respect thereof have already been paid. It is not on record as to how much conversion charges have been paid but, it is the responsibility of the vendor that, if the conversion charges are found to have been not paid she has to bear the same. A notice was given to the Jaipur Development Authority in order to find out as to whether the plan which was earlier approved is the final plan or they have the power to revise the plan once approved. It is stated by Mr. R. D. Rastogi on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority that even if a plan is approved, the Jaipur Development Authority has the jurisdiction to revise the said plan. The property which has been directed to be purchased by the appropriate authority is on the basis of the agreement entered into and on the same terms and conditions. The dispute with regard to the possibility of a different area of land or the other questions which have been raised by learned counsel do not require to be gone into. The principles for valuation in respect of an immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act or other taxation laws are different from the principles which are applicable to acquisition proceedings. The proceedings u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature of the property, the time when the agreement is entered into and similar other objection factors. The valuation, therefore, has to be done by a method which is more objective and could furnish reliable data to arrive at a just conclusion. In respect of land, comparable cases provide the better guide. The comparable cases could be which are in respect of the land having similar character and is in the proximity of the land under agreement having similar advantages and amenities. The proximity in time is also an important factor in such a case. The location, frontage, transport facilities and other amenities besides the size of the plot are relevant considerations. The method of belting is also applied in respect of and having a large area as the front of the land on the main side fetches a higher price than the next belt and so on. In this method, the plot is divided into belts on the basis of distance from the main road and the value of such belts has to be determined separately. In Raghubans Narain Singh v. U. P. Govt., AIR 1967 SC 465, it was observed by the apex court that the value to be ascertained is the price to be paid for the land with all its potentialities an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the property. It is considered appropriate in respect of hotels, cinemas, shops, petrol pumps and other commercial properties. (v) Cost of replacement : This method is applicable in respect of property which is to be designed or used for a special purpose to meet specific requirement and the valuation of such property is derived from the value of alternative sites plus cost of building. The property in such cases have no sale instances in the market and thus no comparable cases could be found. The price of an alternative site and cost of erection of the building is taken into consideration. This cost of replacement is also referred as contractors method. (vi) Break-up method : The break-up method or asset breaking method is adopted for loss incurring concerns which have no chance of revival. (vii) Municipal valuation : Under this system taxes which are calculated by municipal authorities as a percentage of rent realised or realisable are taken into consideration and on that basis the annual value of the property is determined. (viii) Land and building method : Under this method, the valuation of the land is done separately on the basis of comparable instances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is carrying on his business there, which is near to the airport as well. In an area which is already constructed long-back and the business is being carried on neither there is any possibility of any authority demolishing the structure or restraining the purchaser from carrying on the activities. The contention that the building is to be demolished cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, even if the construction is finally demolished after a number of years. The valuation which has been arrived at by the appropriate authority of the constructed area, therefore, cannot be said to be unreasonable or requiring any interference by this court as there is no evidence on record by which it could be concluded that the petitioner has no intention to carry on the business in the said premises where it is being carried on by him under the agreement. The method of valuation of the godown has rightly been taken on the basis of land and building method. In CWT v. Mrs. Sara Varghese [1991] 187 ITR 450, the Kerala High Court has observed that for valuation a hypothetical market is contemplated. Imponderables are involved in the matter of valuation. The market value of the property is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth, etc. In order to arrive at a valuation in respect of the property, there must necessarily be certain element of guess. But the guess must be based on certain facts and according to certain principles which would be, in the facts and circumstances of each case, as fair as possible to the Revenue as well as to the assessee in trying to imagine reasonably and intelligently the price which was expected to be fetched if it was possible to sell the property in question on the relevant valuation date. (iii) Such a determination, therefore, involves adopting certain methods in determining the valuation and there are different kinds of methods, as mentioned in the circulars of the Board and the principles enunciated in the several decisions of the court as noticed before. (iv) Which one of the various methods would be suitable for a particular case must depend upon the nature of the property, the location of the property, the purpose for which the property is used and several other objective factors, viz., the time when the valuation is made, the prospect of buying and selling in respect of the property at the relevant time and also special features in respect of the property, if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the market value of the land on the date of the notification under section 4(1) which are : (i) opinion of experts; (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those methods into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined." So far as the question of valuation of land is concerned; reliance has been placed on the decision of Mathura Prosad Rajgharia v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 465, wherein it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land and the building constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities." The method of capitalisation of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings in respect of a property which is used for business purposes was approved. In CWT v. Raghubar Narain Singh [1984] 146 ITR 228, it was held by the apex court that the market value of an asset would be a question of fact, but if the Tribunal has arrived at its conclusion by taking wrong principles into consideration, then such a finding would not be binding on the High Court. The contention that the area is in the vicinity of a factory which is emitting a foul smell and chemicals cannot be considered because it is mentioned in the order that a number of other colonies have also been developed and had it been the position the residents of the colonies would have approached the environmental authorities of the State of Rajasthan for taking necessary action. The contention that the entire land cannot be used for residential purposes as part of it is to be left out for facilities and roads are to be developed may affect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriate authority in making the order of the pre-emptive purchase is not contrary to law. The reliance on the letter dated November 4, 1992, with regard to the reserve rice is of no avail because it is not the market value but is only the reserve price below which the Jaipur Development Authority cannot sell or allot a plot to any person even of a reserved category and such price cannot be taken into consideration while determining the market value for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C. The market rates for the purpose of registration of an immovable property as notified by the Sub-Registrar can also have no application for determining the market value under Chapter XX-C of the Act. It is limited only for payment of the stamp duty. The said notification also does not take into consideration the difference of value, even of the plots in the same locality having different situation. As such the value notified for the purpose of registration cannot be a proper guide for valuation in respect of preemptive purchase. An objection was also taken that the land is not an identifiable separate piece of land as the other co-owners may object or give another land in lieu of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under CASS, therefore, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 25.08.2010 and 28.07.2011 respectively. The assessee in his return offered long term capital gains of Rs. 4,53,983/-. As per the Revenue/AIR information, the assessee sold the property, jointly held with his brothers, for a consideration of Rs. 6,50,00,000/-, the copy of the sale deed was obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar. It was observed that the property to the extent of 5903 Sq. ft., out of 13,058 sq.ft was sold during the assessment year 2008-09. While working out the long term capital gains, the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for the property measuring 5903 sq.ft., at New Door No.160, (Old No.937), Poonamalee High Road, Purasawakam, Chennai was taken at Rs. 2,29,792/- (i.e Rs. 5 lacks per ground). To verify the claim, a letter was addressed to the Sub-Registrar to verify the value of the claimed property as on 01.04.1981. As per the Sub-registrar, vide letter dt.10.11.2011 the property was opined to be Rs. 50,000/-per square ground. As per the Revenue, the value was only considered for the land and not for the building, therefore, the value of the building was not considered. On appeal, before....