Prakashan & Anr Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commr. of Income Tax & Ors
 INSC 325 (26
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 575
Appeal No. 2041 of 1982
Taken on board with the consent of counsel for both the parties.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 269 (occurring
in Chapter XX-A) of the Income Tax Act.
appellant purchased a house at Bhopal under a
registered sale deed dated February 13, 1973.
The consideration recited in the deed was Rs 49,000.
were taken under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act with respect to the said
property. The Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department valued the house
at Rs 85,600. Before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), both the
appellant and the transferor admitted that the consideration that really passed
between them was in a sum of Rs 90,000. In view of this admission and also
taking into consideration other material available before him, the Inspecting
Assistant Commissioner ordered acquisition of the property by his order dated May 27, 1976. The appeal preferred to the
Tribunal under Section 269-G was dismissed.
appellant then carried the matter in further appeal to the High Court which too
has been dismissed. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have relied upon the
admission made by the appellant as well as the transferor with respect to the
actual consideration that passed between them.
are unable to see any substance in this appeal.
it is admitted by the appellant and also by the transferor that the
consideration that really passed between them is Rs 90,000, while the document
shows that the consideration is Rs 49,000 only, it is clear that the
requirements of Section 269-C(2) are satisfied. No other material is brought on
record which should induce us to take a different view. The appeal accordingly
fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(C) No. 3947 of 1982 5.This writ petition has been filed by the appellant in
Civil Appeal No. 2041 of 1982 challenging the constitutional validity of the
provisions contained in Chapter XX-A.
regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to go
into the question of the constitutional validity of the said Chapter XX-A,
particularly in view of the fact that except generally saying that the
provisions of the Chapter are unconstitutional, no arguments as such have been
addressed by the learned counsel to substantiate the said plea. Writ petition
is accordingly dismissed. No costs.