1980 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roperty to various parties as follows— S. No. Name of the party Date of transfer. Amt. For which transferred 1. Sri Dineshchand Agarwal 27-2-74 32,000 2. Smt. Chikli Devi 27-2-74 31,000 3. Sri Bajranglal 27-2-74 17,000 4. Sri Gaffarkhan & Sattar Khan 21-6-73 40,000 The ITO was, however, of the view that the amount of which these properties were shown to have been transferred did not represent the fair market value of those portions of Bhinai House. He referred to the valuation made by the Valuation officer of the Department but had reported that the fair market value of the property sold to Shri Dineshchand Agrawal was Rs. 39,000 and the property sold to Smt. Chiklidevi was Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the sale deeds. Reliance was placed on the decision of Madras High Court in Addl. CIT vs. P.S. Kappuswami & Others(1). 3. The AAC considered the facts and found that some of the properties were immediately re-sold by the purchasers by a higher consideration. He distinguished the facts of the present facts with the facts of P.S. Kappu Swami & Others decided by the Madras High Court. The AAC was of the view that the provisions of s. 52(2) were applied as there was material to show that the fair market value of the property was higher than the consideration shown to have been received by the assessee in the sale deeds. He referred to the language of s. 52(2) and held that there was no requirement that the assessee should actually receiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eds. He pointed to the actual sales made by the purchasers at a higher consideration. Reliance was placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in 91 ITR 49. 6. We have considered the facts of the case and wee are of the view that the provisions of s. 52(2) are not applicable to the facts of the case. The various Benches of the Tribunal have taken the view that the provisions of s. 52(2) do not apply to bona fide transactions. The provisions of that section are not applicable where actual consideration is fully disclosed and for applying the above provision it is necessary to show that there has been an actual under-statement of the consideration for transfer. In the present case, the ITO has produced to determine the fair market value on....