M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) The revenue has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act), challenging order dated 27.4.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), while deciding ITA No. 77/Chandi/2005, in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000. The revenue has claimed that the following question of law would arise for determination of this Court:- ITA No. 553 of 2006 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT was justified in law in upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) while ignoring the valuation of the subject properties as determined by the Registering Authority after taking into account all the prevailing factors and also ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had brought comparable evidence on record regarding the substantially higher value at which a plot in that particular area was sold during the same period of time.?
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. However, it is appropriate to mention that the main controversy had centred around the insistence of the Assessing Officer to assess the property at the value for which it was registered and stamp duty was paid as against the actual price mentioned in the sale deed. As per the sale deed, the assessee had sold Shed No. 144, situated at Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh, measuring 1477.73 Sq. Yds., to one M/s Boparai Industrial Corporation. As per the sale deed, sale consideration was Rs. 19,00,000/- whereas the Registering Authority had worked out the value of the property on the basis of the Collectors rates as Rs. 61,10,000/-. Accordingly, non-judicial stamp paper affixed on the sale deed was in the sum of Rs. 7,63,750/-. Another shed was sold by the assessee bearing No. 146, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh, for the similar amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- whereas the Registering Authority had valued the property at Rs. 52,00,000/-. The nonjudicial stamp papers were purchased for Rs. 7,86,250/-. This
(3.) property was sold to one Shri Joginder Pal. The Assessing Officer insisted on in assessing the property at the rate the value was assessed by the Registering Authority, namely, Rs. 61,10,000 and Rs. 52,00,000/- and accordingly, framed its assessment. The Assessing Officer consequently made addition to that extent vide his assessment order dated 24.3.2003. On 11.11.2004, the appeal filed by the assessee under Section 250(6) of the Act was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh, by observing as under:- 3.5 The submissions of the appellant have been considered carefully and I have gone through the facts, material and evidence available on record. It is observed that one of the buyers M/S Boparai was a tenant in the above property paying a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and that the property was tenanted alongwith two other tenants paying monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 850/- respectively. M/S Boparai who was one of the tenants agreed to purchase the said property ON as is where is basis including the litigation against the other two tenants in the Court. The said property has been registered on the basis of the Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued in Form No. 34-A for consideration amount of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The other property bearing no. 146 was also sold for Rs. 19,00,000/- to another tenant M/S Anju Industries which is one of the fourteen tenants occupying the property at the relevant point of;