TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tya Bala of Chandigarh (transferor) for apparent consideration of Rs. 5 lacs on 12th Dec, 1984. According to the Competent Authority, the apparent consideration of the property was considered to be low in view of the prevailing land rates of the area. He, therefore, obtained a report from the Government Valuer, IT Department, Chandigarh under s. 269L of the Act. He estimated the value of this property at Rs. 8,47,000. Which fixing the above value, the Valuation Officer relied on comparable sale instances of the years 1982 and 1983. One of the sale instances was of House No. 631, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh as per report of the Valuation Officer (wrongly mentioned as Sector 37-A). The transferee submitted before the Competent Authority report of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um period available to the transferee from the date of passing the order i.e. upto 10th Nov., 1986. However, the appeal was filed on 24th Nov., 1986. Therefore, it was out of time. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has stated before us that the impugned order was received at Chandigarh address of the transferee by one Shri Gurmit Singh s/o Shri Ajit Singh. Shri Gurmit Singh is distantly related to the transferee. An affidavit from Shri Gurmit Singh has been filed in paper book deposing that the impugned order was received by him near about the first week of Oct., 1986. While receiving the said order he put his signatures in the name of the transferee as Inderjit Singh. Shri Inderjit Singh was out of station to UP and when he returned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer is at Rs. 8,47,000. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended before that first floor of the property was under the occupation of a tenant and the sale was made with tenancy liability at the time of transfer. He further submitted that 1/6th of the covered area of this house was under tenancy at the relevant time. A tenant, according to him, is a big source of nuisance and that substantially diminishes the market value of the property. According to him, the Competent Authority in para 19 of his order has wrongly held that the contention was unsubstantiated and, therefore, it could not be taken into consideration. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the finding of the Competent Authority was contrary to facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive of the actual condition of the superstructure, some multiplication have been done and the same have been totalled. He further pointed out that for the value of the land the Valuation Officer had relied on two sale transactions one of such transaction is of House No. 631, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh. This house was built on an area of 1000 sq. Yards (the area in the case of the impugned property is also 1001 sq. Yards). It was sold for Rs. 5 lacs vide sale deed No. 1043 dt. 20th Oct., 1982. He stated that acquisition proceedings initiated in this case were ultimately dropped by the Competent Authority and this was a comparable sale having the same area as in the case of the appellants. He further pointed out that Sector 27-A being the compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ni Singh Avtar Singh vs. IAC (Acqn. Range) (1984) 41 CTR (P&H) 243 : (1985) 151 ITR 233 (P&H) that for the two properties to be comparable, the dates of transfer have to be closely proximate. He further urged that Sector 9-B and Sector 27-A, Chandigarh, were prestigious sectors as compared to Sector 21-A. He, therefore, urged that even on this account, the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority needs vacation. 9. It was also stated by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that each sector in Chanigarh is spread over an area of 1 sq. K.M. That being so, the two sale instances of Sector 27-A and 9-B were of no help to determine the fair market value of the property in question. According to him, neither the locality was similar nor ....