JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal under S. 269H of the IT Act, 1961. The admitted facts may be briefly noticed.
(2.) ON 13th Aug., 1981, the factory building in dispute was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 4,11,000 to M/s S.K. Chaudhary and Ors -the partners of M/s Bharat National Industrial Corporation. B -6, Mayapuri, Phase II, New Delhi. Proceedings under S. 269C of the Act were initiated. However, it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs. 4,08,695. Thus, the proceedings were dropped by the Revenue. On 13th Dec., 1983, this property was sold by M/s S.K. Chaudhary etc. to the respondent viz. M/s Coral Chemicals (P) Ltd., New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 5,05,000. The proceedings under s. 269C of the Act were again initiated. On 20th March, 1985, the IAC passed an order under S. 269F (6) for the acquisition of the property. He held that the actual value of the property was Rs. 9,25,400. Since the difference between the actual and the apparent value was more than 15 per cent, he ordered the acquisition of the property under S. 269F(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed an appeal. The Tribunal having accepted the assessee's claim, the Revenue has approached this Court through the present appeal under S. 269H of the Act. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the provisions of S. 269C(2) of the Act. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the Revenue has been controverted by Pipat, learned counsel for the assessee.
(3.) AFTER consideration of the matter we find that the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence which had been produced by the parties. It has been noticed that there were two evaluation reports. According to the report of the official valuer, the market value of the property on the date of transfer was not less than Rs. 9,25,400. According to the approved valuer produced by the assessee, the market value of the property on the crucial date was not more than 4,96,000. There was apparently a substantial difference in the value assessed by the two valuers. How and why ?;