M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals under Section 269H of the Income Tax Act 1962 (for short, 'the Act') are directed against the consolidated order dated March 30, 1988 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (herein after referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect to two pieces of land admeasuring 10 Bighas each.
(2.) THE relevant facts are these -On the basis of the reports received from the Income Tax Inspector and Income Tax Officer Sri Ganga Nagar, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Acquisition Jaipur Range, who also functioned as a Competent Authority under Section 269B of the Act for Jaipur Range had reasons to believe that S/Shri Surja Ram and Kishna Ram sons of Shri Chatroo Ram Nai, Resident of Chak 5E Choti Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar had sold two pieces of land, admeasuring 10 Bighas each to the Respondent Samiti for apparent considerations which were less than the fair market value of the said two immovable properties by more than 15% in each case. The two peices of land had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 3.30 lakhs each. The Competent Authority was further of the belief that the considerations for the transfers had not been truly stated in the instruments of transfers with the object of either facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferors to pay tax under the Act in respect to any income arising from the transfer or facilitating the conconlment of any income or any moneys or other assets, which had not been or which ought to have been disclosed by the transferee for the purpose of the Act or the Wealth Tax Act 1957. He therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 269C for the acquisition of the two immovable properties by publishing a notice to that effect in the official Gazette as required by Section 269D of the Act. Though the transferors filed their objections under Section 269E contending therein that the two pieces of land were transferred at fair market value and that the Consideration received for such transfers had been truly stated in the instruments of transfer yet since neither they nor the transferee appeared before him at the hearing of the case in response to notices issued under Section 269F, the learned Competent Authority concluded that these was no escape from accepting the report of the Income Tax Inspector/Officer. In his report the Income Tax Inspector had reported that the land in dispute situated in front of the land of Chak 6E choti which land was inhabitated by residential colonies built by the Rajasthan Housing Board. He had further reported that in chak 6E choti, Which land was inhabitated by residential colonies built by the Rajasthan Housing Board. He had further reported that in Chak 6E Choti, Sri Ganga Nagar, S/Shri Moti Ram and Narendra Kumar had agreed on 12.5.1982 to sell and purchase land @ . 50,000/ - per Bighas. The learned Competent Authority, therefore, held that the fair market value of the properties in dispute was Rs. 50,000/ - per Bigha. He accordingly passed the following order - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority dated July 27, 1987 the Respondent preferred I.T. Acq. Appeal Nos. 10+11 of 1987 before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was urged on behalf of the Respondent that on the basis of mere report of the Income Tax Inspector no presumption of under statement of consideration can be raised. Accepting this contention on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Unique Association Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India 145 I.T.R. 114 : 1984 TLR 791 the Appellate Tribunal held that presumption of understatment of the price was not available at the initial stage of the acquisition proceedings and that there was no other material on the records of the two cases which might indicate that the considerations as passed between the parties were much more than those stated in the instruments of transfer. The Appellate Tribunal therefore, quashed the acquisition proceedings in both the cases.
(3.) MR . G.S.Bapna, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Appellate Tribunal proceeded on altogether wrong footing in as much as it took the view that presumption under Section 269C(2)(b) was not available to the appellant at the initial stage of the proceedings. Mr. Bapna submitted that once the consideration stated on the instrument of transfer is found less than the fair market value of the immovable property a presumption would arise that the transfer ,was made with the object mentioned in clause (a) or (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 269C. In this behalf Mr. Bapna relied upon Punjab and Harayana High Court decision in the case of Satlaj Chit Fund and Financers Private Ltd. v. C.I.T. .;