Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is, therefore, contended by Mr Sahni that the Settlement Commission ought not to have accepted the declaration of Rs 7.6 crores as the undisclosed amount on behalf of the respondent No.1 and her husband when the sellers themselves had disclosed a sum of Rs 16 crores.

7. Mr Parag Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submitted that it is an admitted fact that 1/3 rd of the Motia Khan Property would fall in the share of the respondent No.1 and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta. It is also not disputed that the said share was acquired through the purchase of shares as indicated above. He further submitted that it is also not disputed by the Revenue and, in fact, it is the Revenue's case that the value of the property at Motia Khan was Rs 130 crores. A further sum of Rs 3 crores could, admittedly, be added by way of registration charges taking the value of the property, at the time of the transaction, to be Rs 133 crores.

8. Mr Parag Tripathi further submitted that 1/3rd of this value of Rs 133 crores would amount to Rs 44.34 crores. Thus, according to Mr Tripathi, this is the value of the 1/3rd share in the said property which the respondent No.1 along with her husband had acquired. He submitted that it is an admitted position that out of the sum of Rs 44.34 crores the respondent No.1 and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta had disclosed payment/investment of Rs 36.73 crores in their books. Therefore, there was a gap between the value of Rs 44.34 crores as computed above on the basis of the admitted position and the sum of Rs 36.73 crores which had been disclosed. This gap was to the extent of Rs 7.61 crores and, this is exactly what has been declared before the Settlement Commission in the application submitted by the respondent No.1 and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta.