AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the judgment of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Allahabad, dated April 29, 1975.
(2.) ASUDA Singh sold half of his house No. 122/722, Hariharnath Shastry Nagar, Kanpur, to Jumramal and 1/4 each of the same house to his two sons Ghanshyam Das and Dwarka Das, sale consideration being Rs. 60,000. The information in Form No. 37 -G bearing No. 2456 was received in respect of this property from the Sub -Registrar, Kanpur, on September 22, 1974. Upon receiving this information, the Competent Authority referred under Section 269L to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of the property in question as on the date of execution of the sale deed, i.e., September 5, 1973, registered on September 17, 1973. The Valuation Officer found that the fair market value of the house in question was Rs. 92,600 as against the apparent consideration of Rs. 60,000. Thus, according to him, there was a difference of Rs. 32,600 between the fair market value and the apparent consideration. This difference was more than 15% as was required by Section 269C of the Act for issuing a notice under s, 269D.
(3.) THE Competent Authority through the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer at Rs. 92,600 had reasons to believe : (i) that the said immovable property could be valued at Rs. 92,600 ; (ii) that the difference between the two was 54.33% ; and (iii) that the consideration agreed to between the parties was nottruly stated in the sale deed with the object of facilitating concealment ofincome by the transferee for the purpose of income -tax. ;