Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Express Towers P. Ltd. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6056 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.97 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 4357 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.97 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 4357 of 1993)
Petitioner: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Respondent: Express Towers P. Ltd. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6056 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.97 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 4357 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.97 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 4357 of 1993)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 10, 2001
Appearances:
Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain and Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 with Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 269 (UC) – Appeal – Application in Form-37 for sale of property – Instances of neighbouring localities taken – High Court considering various aspects – Apparent consideration or fair market value not of much magnitude. Held that it is not a fit case to interfere. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
1. By an agreement made on 21.5.1987, property bearing No. B-7/118, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, measuring about 375 sq. meter was offered to be sold for a sum of Rs.23.50 lakhs. On an application being made in Form 37(I) before the Appropriate Authority as required under Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Appropriate Authority proceeded to take into consideration three instances of sale made in respect of property bearing No.B-1/16, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in February 1987; of property bearing NO.J-10, Green Park, New Delhi and B-2/2, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi in February 1987. The average of three sale instances was taken into account to work out the land rate of Rs.7,850/- per sq. mtr. and it was concluded that the fair market value of the property in question was over the apparent consideration disclosed by 28.5 per cent. On that basis it proceeded to acquire the property for the Union of India, rejecting the explanation offered by the transferor that he was desperate to sell the property in order to go abroad and settle with his only daughter in U.S.A. and that the sale instances are of incomparable properties in different areas and the adjustment can arise in cases where there is basic similarity between two properties. However, these reasons ap-pealed to the High Court on challenge made to the order of acqui-sition and the same was quashed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. The High Court in examining the matter, has considered the various aspects in true perspective. The value of the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or the fair market value determined by the Appropriate Authority is not of such magnitude as to call for any interference. We are of the view that this is not a fit case in which interference is called for.
3. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
1. By an agreement made on 21.5.1987, property bearing No. B-7/118, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, measuring about 375 sq. meter was offered to be sold for a sum of Rs.23.50 lakhs. On an application being made in Form 37(I) before the Appropriate Authority as required under Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Appropriate Authority proceeded to take into consideration three instances of sale made in respect of property bearing No.B-1/16, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in February 1987; of property bearing NO.J-10, Green Park, New Delhi and B-2/2, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi in February 1987. The average of three sale instances was taken into account to work out the land rate of Rs.7,850/- per sq. mtr. and it was concluded that the fair market value of the property in question was over the apparent consideration disclosed by 28.5 per cent. On that basis it proceeded to acquire the property for the Union of India, rejecting the explanation offered by the transferor that he was desperate to sell the property in order to go abroad and settle with his only daughter in U.S.A. and that the sale instances are of incomparable properties in different areas and the adjustment can arise in cases where there is basic similarity between two properties. However, these reasons ap-pealed to the High Court on challenge made to the order of acqui-sition and the same was quashed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. The High Court in examining the matter, has considered the various aspects in true perspective. The value of the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or the fair market value determined by the Appropriate Authority is not of such magnitude as to call for any interference. We are of the view that this is not a fit case in which interference is called for.
3. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
