TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (10) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l briefly give our reasons. Plot No. s. 332, Greater Kailash, Part 11, measuring 300 sq. yards was agreed to be sold by the original owners Narinder Pal Singh and Inder Kaur, to one Sushil Ratan Gupta at Rs. 4,025 per sq. yard or for Rs. 12,07,500. The original owners executed a receipt dated October 14, 1981, which, however, was a detailed one setting out the terms and conditions under which the property was agreed to be sold. An advance of Rs. 40,000 was received. However, the original owners subsequently entered into a registered agreement in February, 1982, to sell the same property to M/s. Himland Exports P. Ltd. for a consideration stated in the sale deed which was executed on July 30, 1982 at Rs. 7,50,000. It is in these circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly under an agreement of sale entered into within a period of about four months for a purported price which worked out to Rs. 2,500 per sq. yard. The original proposed transferee had also filed an affidavit before the competent authority complaining of the fact that the original owners had gone back on the agreement with him. It is on the basis of these two items of definite and positive information that the competent authority arrived at a reasonable belief that the property had been sold for a consideration which had not been truly set out in the sale deed and that this was done with one of the two objects set out in section 269C(1). As pointed out by the Tribunal, at this stage, the competent, authority has only to arrive at a tentative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shil Ratan Gupta, and the details of the proceedings in a suit filed by Sushil Ratan Gupta claiming damages for breach of agreement of sale which went practically undefended. On the strength of these facts, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the agreement with Sushil Ratan Gupta was not an agreement for a fanciful price, as alleged, that the said party had been ready and willing to go through with the sale provided the owners complied with their obligations in law before a sale deed could be executed but the owners had not done this, that the explanation given for entering into the second agreement was false and that the original owners had extricated themselves from the agreement at the cost of paying interest and damages lending....