COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. T V SURESH CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals filed by CIT, Kerala-I, Ernakulam against a common order passed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench. The appeals before the Tribunal concerned the same matter but were by different parties. Those appeals were against the one and the same order of the IAC, Acquisition Range, Ernakulam. Since the Tribunal purported to dispose of those six appeals by the common order, the Commissioner has filed six appeals in this Court.

(2.) THE Competent Authority under the IT Act passed an order for acquisition of immovable property under s. 269F of the IT Act, 1961. It was the case of the Competent Authority that the immovable property in respect of which acquisition proceedings were commenced was transferred for consideration which was less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties had not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer and further that such fair market value of the property exceeded the apparent consideration by more than fifteen per cent of such apparent consideration. The deed of transfer was executed by transferors in favour of four transferees. Since the two transferors and the four transferees objected to the order of the IAC, each one of them filed an appeal. The transfer was of 16 cents of vacant land in Survey No. 592/2 of Ernakulam village. This property had been purchased in 1965 by the transferors jointly for a consideration of Rs. 33,000. To make the property purchased regular in shape, they had purchased a further extent of 0.675 square links in Survey No. 592/3 on 16th July, 1973 so much so the total extent of the land became 16.675 cents. It was the said extent that was sold by them to the four persons. Though the total extent under the documents taken by the joint transferors was 16.675 cents, on measurement it was found to be only 16.268 cents. Out of this 5.418 cents in A schedule, 3.6 cents each in B and C schedules and 3.650 cents in D schedule were sold to four persons by the joint transferors under one instrument of transfer that being document No. 1694/73 executed on 17th Aug., 1973. Though the total extent thus conveyed under the instrument of transfer was 16.268 cents, distinct areas described in separate schedules were sold to each one of the four transferees for independent consideration. The four purchasers were brothers. Even before the purchase was effected there was an agreement of sale and it was pursuant to the agreement of sale that the purchase was effected. An advance of Rs. 5,000 had been paid by one of the four purchasers.

(3.) UNDER s. 269H of the Act an appeal lies to the High Court on any question of law against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under s. 269G. Accordingly these appeals have been filed by the CIT.