Dy.
Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors Vs. Express Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
[2001] Insc 297 (10 May
2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan Rajendra Babu, J. :
L.I.T.J
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 Delhii 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 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 appealed to the High Court on challenge made to the order
of acquisition and the same was quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
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.
The
appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Back
