Navin Grah Nirman Sahakari Sam vs Additional Commisioner Of Inco on 28 March, 2011
25. Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel appearing as intervener for one of the allottees, argued that main object of Chapter XX-A of the Act of 1961 was to prevent evasion of tax liability, therefore it was incumbent upon the competent authority to arrive at satisfaction about prima facie foundation that (i) the apparent sale consideration was less than fair market value by 15%, (ii) the consideration stated in instrument was at a lesser figure than that actually received by assessee, (iii) it was to facilitate evasion of tax liability by transferor, or (iv) to facilitate concealment of income by transferee for Income-tax Act or Wealth-tax Act. In present case, none of these ingredients were proved inasmuch as it was also not proved as to what amount was actually received by transferor, which was more than fair market price nor the department has made out a case of concealment of income as against transferee, rather in assessment of transferor, it was held that department has not been able to discharge burden of evidence cast upon it to show that assessee had understated sale consideration. Learned counsel in this connection relied on judgment of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese's case reported in 1981 (4) SCC 173. It was argued that District Valuation Officer has illegally made valuation of land on the basis of plots of smaller size about 200 square yards, which is wholly illegal.