TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9, 1974, under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act "). An immovable property bearing No. 354 situated at I Block, Jayanagar Extension of Bangalore City, measuring (75'+74')/2 x 120 or about 8,940 sq. ft. was owned by a partnership firm called M/s. B. Lakshminarayanaiah Setty & Sons, Bangalore City (" transferor "). On May 31, 1973, the transferor sold the said property to another partnership firm called M/s. National Flag Perfumery Works, Bangalore City (" transferee ") for a consideration of Rs. 65,000. On an examination of the said transfer, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on November 14, 1973, recorded his opinion under section 269C of the Act to the effect that the fair market value of the property exceeded the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same and allowed the said appeal of the transferee. Hence, this appeal by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 269H of the Act. On the contentions urged before us, only one point arises for our determination and that is this: "Whether, the Tribunal committed an error of law in cancelling the order made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the evidence did not support the same? " We will now proceed to examine this point. Sri G. Sarangan, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Tribunal, in interfering with the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, had either ignored or rejected material evidence on illegal and improper grounds and its conclusion was illegal and unju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....competent authority to collect and marshal cogent evidence in support of the fair market value to be adopted by him when he passes an order under section 269F(6)." We need hardly say this is the correct legal position under the Act. We have no doubt, the Tribunal examined the evidence and reached its conclusion in the case really bearing this principle, though it somewhat inaptly adverted to the same while discussing the evidence and reaching its conclusion on the fair market value of the property instead of stating the same first and then discussing the evidence, which is the correct and proper way to do. But this error by itself is not a ground for us to frown on the Tribunal and undo its order, if it is otherwise legal and valid. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this being one of the earliest cases decided by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the law was not clear and there was no guidance and, therefore, it is proper to remit the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to collect necessary evidence and redetermine the matter in accordance with law. An acquisition under the Act can be made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner which results in very serious consequences on evidence that can stand the test of scrutiny by the appellate authority under the Act and not on assumptions and presumptions. The power has to be exercised with full responsibility, circumspection, earnestness and not casually. When the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner fails to collect evidence and decide....