TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 62/1762 & 1763/73-74/Acq B made on November 30, 1974, under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act "). A vacant site bearing No. 134 (old Nos. 170, 183 and 204) situated at 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore City, measuring 60' x 137' or 8220 sq. ft. was owned by Sriyuths Maheshchandra Pareksh and Jaisukhlal Pareksh of Bangalore (" transferors "). On September 10, 1973, the said transferors by two separate and distinct instruments of transfer of that date transferred the site in equal half share to Sriyuths Lakshmichand and Lalchand of Bangalore (transferees) for a consideration of Rs. 60,125 to each of the said transferees. On March 12, 1974, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner examined the details of the property, sale c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he acquisition of the property under section 269F(6) of the Act. Against the said order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the transferees filed appeals under section 269G of the Act before the Tribunal and before those appeals were taken up for hearing, they sought the leave of the Tribunal to urge an additional ground to the effect that the proceedings initiated by effecting service of notices on them and the transferors before the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette was an invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the completion of proceedings for acquisition were void in law and invalid. On allowing the said additional ground to be urged, the Tribunal by its order made on Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we have examined this very question on similar facts. In Premchand's case, we have held (i) that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the additional ground, and (ii) that even otherwise, there was no merit in the additional ground urged and accepted by it. Sri Sarangan has not urged any new ground or relied on any binding ruling of the Supreme Court to reconsider the view we have expressed in Premchand's case [1985] 153 ITR 774. For the very reasons stated in Premchand's case, we answer point No. (i) in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Re: Point No. (ii).-Sri Srinivasan contends that in reversing the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the fair market value of the property, the Tribunal had eith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, one of which is the 6th Cross. A large number of film distribution companies have their offices on this road. A leading chartered accountant has also an office in this area. It is thus commercial and residential in nature. As this area is most sought after by the film people, Gandhinagar has always been commanding a very high price in the open market. Only a few open plots are available in this area and, therefore, an open plot of land in this area is a veritable gold mine for a real estate dealer." On this basis, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner determined the fair market value of the property and reached his conclusion. In their appeals, the transferees took objections to this on two grounds: (i) that their properties should h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unwarranted in law which necessarily means that its order cannot be upheld. In determining the fair market value, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had taken into consideration the importance of the locality of the city where the property was situated. But, in reaching a different conclusion on the same which it was entitled to do, the Tribunal totally ignored the importance of the locality of the city. In determining the fair market value of a property, the importance of the locality cannot be ignored and must always be kept in view. After all, valuation is not and cannot be made on a vacuum. Without any doubt, the Tribunal committed an error of law in ignoring the same. In accepting the case of the transferees, the Tribunal obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r grounds like the aptness or otherwise of the belting method and all other matters. In this connection, we consider it necessary to draw the attention of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to our decision in Premchand's case [1985] 153 ITR 774 and Subhas Malharirao Kachure v. IAC Acquisition [1986] 159 ITR 726 (I.T. As Nos. 9 to 13 of 1976) in which cases we have indicated the correct legal principles of valuation that should be borne in determining the fair market value of the property under Chapter XX-A of the Act. We also consider it proper to reserve liberty to both the parties to lead all such further evidence as they propose to place in support of their respective cases and urge all such contentions as are available to them on the....