K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is an appeal under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed by Smt. Pratipal Kaur against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30th April, 1975, dismissing the appeal.
(2.) Govind Dev Bhartiya was the owner of house No. 111/275, Harsha-nagar, Kanpur. By the sale deed 26th July, 1973, which was registered on 28th July, 1973, he sold the house to Smt. Pratipal Kaur, the appellant, for Rs. 48,000. On the aforesaid transfer, the Competent Authority received information from the Sub-Registrar, Kanpur, under Form No. 37G. On receipt of this intimation, the Competent Authority made enquiries through an I.T. inspector, who reported that the fair market value of the house was Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. one lakh). This estimate was based on the finding that the value of the land on which the house was constructed was Rs. 60,000 at the rate of Rs. 150 per square yard and the value of the building was Rs. 40,000. On receipt of this report of the inspector, the Competent Authority referred the matter to the Valuation Cell, Unit No. II, Kanpur, for determination of the market value of the house as on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The Valuation Officer estimated the fair market value of the house at Rs. 67,750. After examining the reports of the inspector and the Valuation Officer, the Competent Authority found that the fair market value of the house sold to Smt. Pratipal Kaur exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15% and that the consideration for which the transfer was agreed between the parties had not been truly stated in the sale deed with the object of facilitating the concealment of money by the transferee for the purpose of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Competent Authority recorded reasons and initiated acquisition proceedings, A notice dated 14th December, 1973, was issued. This notice was published in the Official Gazette on 19th January, 1974, and copies of the same were served on the transferor and the transferee on 3rd January, 1974, and 17th December, 1973, respectively.
(3.) In pursuance of the notice, the transferor and the transferee filed objections. Both of them pleaded that the house had been sold at a fair market value and that the apparent value was not less than the real. They claimed that Rs. 48,000 was the maximum which the house could fetch. The Competent Authority rejected the objections. In his view as all the conditions of Section 269F(6) had been established, he made an order for acquiring the house. Against this order of the Competent Authority an appeal was taken by the appellant to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.;