Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Smt. Harnam Kaur vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 21 May, 1986 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.V. Suresh Chandran And Ors. on 29 March, 1979

In fact, the Kerala High Court in T.V. Suresh Chandrart's case (supra), construed four different sales to four different transferees even when the sale deed was one. The Court observed that each one of the four transferees had absolute right to the property transferred to him and in the property transferred to one the other transferee had no right and, therefore, one single acquisition proceeding based on that single deed was not held to be in accordance with Section 269C(1) of the Act. Thus it follows from the Kerala authority that action for acquisition could lie in respect of each transfer of any immovable property as witnessed by a sale deed and not on the basis of the number of sale deeds. Considering the matter on this footing, the three transfers witnessed by three sale deeds relating to pieces of 19 sq. yds. of property each will have to be separately judged for the application of Section 269C(1) of the Act and the test of fair market value applied. We do not find any force in the line of reasoning of the CA as mentioned in paras 3 and 22 of his order. It is clear to us on reading the report of the AVO, which is Annexure 'B' to the order of the CA that the AVO treated the open big portion of the plot of the transferor to be an Ahata. The word used is not correct inasmuch as it is clear from the AVO's own report that the property of the transferor was not bounded by a boundary wall and this is, therefore, a case of some building built on the front portion of a big plot of land, which was largely vacant so far as the rear portion was concerned and even a part of front portion. The CA has not understood the correct meaning of Ahata and has mechanically taken the word from the report of the AVO, who also misunderstood the meanings but was using it to describe a big plot as an Ahata. Further it is obvious that none of the three sale deeds, which have given rise to IT Acquisition Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 (Asr.)/1986 is in respect of a purchase, whose fair market value is more than Rs. 25,000 even as per the valuation made by the departmental valuer. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings initiated in all the three cases are improper and these are quashed. The order of the CA acquiring the three pieces of property of 19 sq. yds. each is invalid and it is cancelled and the appeals of the three transferees, IT Acq. A. Nos. 1 to 3 (Asr.)/1986 are allowed.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Amrit Sports Industries on 30 May, 1983

7. Next, we take up IT Acq. A. Nos. 4 to 6 (Asr.)/1986. On the basis of the principles laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court covering the conditions precedent for initiating acquisition proceedings, enunciated in CIT v. Amrit Sports Industries [1984] 145 ITR 231, Shri Arora submitted that, as can be seen from the reasons recorded by the CA in the three cases, which were at pages 12 to 14 of transferees' combined paper book, none of these proceedings had been validly initiated. He in particular attacked that the CA had initiated the acquisition action in the three cases without applying his mind and in a mechanical fashion by using a stereotyped form and such an action cannot fulfil the condition of reason to believe prescribed in Section 269C(1) of the Income-tax Act. For this purpose, he read out the reasons in all the three cases and stated that they were identical and CA had used a cyclostyled proforma filling therein certain information. It was pointed out that the CA had merely looked into the report of the AVO given in respect of three sales of March, 1981, which are the subject-matter of appeals in IT Acq. A. Nos. 1 to 3 (Asr.)/ 1986, and mechanically applied the rate of Rs. 1,050 per sq. yd. in respect of pieces of the plot sold in three sale transactions of May, 1982. Shri Arora pointed out that neither the CA considered the size of the plots sold in May, 1982 nor their location, which was very much disadvantageous and nor even the location of the property of the sale instance, which was considered by the AVO for preparing his report about the land rate to be applied in respect of three sales made in March, 1981. Shri Arora referred to the report of the AVO, which is Annexure 'B' of the order of the CA to say that the AVO considered the sale of a shop in Shastri Market near Maheshwari Street, and not of a plot of land in Maheshwari Street and by some process not explained derived from the sale price of the shop the rate per sq. yd. of land underneath the shop. It was contended that if the CA had applied his mind, which he was required to do to form his reasons to believe, he would not have failed to notice the discrepancy in the approach of the AVO in the earlier valuation report about the sales in March, 1981 and further fairly advised he should have also considered the location of the plots sold vis-a-vis three pieces of property sold earlier in March, 1981. It was stated that barring the front portion of the property, there was no access to the rear portion of the property of the transferor. It was also explained that the two purchasers of the front plot Smt. Harnam Kaur and S/Shri Bhagwan Singh and Narinder Singh purchased the rear portions of their plots in May, 1982 and thus they had an access while the third purchaser S/Shri Kala Ram and Chuni Lal when they purchased the back portion had no access until they purchased the front portion purchased by Smt. Varinder Kaur in June, 1982. It was submitted that all these facts show the great importance of the location in these three cases for the purposes of determining the fair market value. It was contended that when the CA has initiated the acquisition action without having any proper material or applying his mind to the relevant facts, his action is nothing but a mechanical action by the use of a stereotyped form and such an action cannot give rise to a 'reason to believe' in the eye of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1