http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6056  of  1998

PETITIONER: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: EXPRESS TOWERS P. LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU, J. : L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   By  an agreement made on 21.5.1987, property bearing No. B- 7/118, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, measuring about  375  sq.  meter was offered to be sold for a  sum  of Rs.23.50  lakhs.  On an application being made in Form 37(I) before  the Appropriate Authority as required under  Section 269  UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as  the Act], the Appropriate Authority proceeded to  take into  consideration three instances of sale made in  respect of  property  bearing  No.B-1/16, Hauz Khas,  New  Delhi  in February 1987;  of property bearing NO.J-10, Green Park, New Delhi  and B-2/2, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhii in February 1987.   The  average of three sale instances was taken  into account  to  work  out the land rate of Rs.7,850/-  per  sq. mtr.  and it was concluded that the fair market value of the property  in  question was over the  apparent  consideration disclosed  by  28.5  per cent.  On that basis  proceeded  to acquire  the property for the Union of India, rejecting  the explanation  offered by the transferor that he was desperate to  sell the property in order to go abroad and settle  with his only daughter in U.S.A.  and that the sale instances are of  incomparable  properties  in  different  areas  and  the adjustment  can  arise  in  cases   where  there  is   basic similarity  between  two properties.  However these  reasons appealed to the High Court on challenge made to the order of acquisition  and the same was quashed.  Hence this appeal by special leave.

   The  High  Court in examining the matter has  considered the  various aspects in true perspective.  The value of  the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or  the  fair  market value determined  by  the  Appropriate Authority  is  not  of  such magnitude as to  call  for  any interference.   We  are of the view that this is not  a  fit case in which interference is called for.

   The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.  However, there

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

shall be no order as to costs.