ITA No. 1 of 1988 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh ITA No. 1 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .. Appellant vs Gurpal Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 2.11.1987 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) in I.T. (Acq) No. 10/Chandi/87. Briefly the facts are that on an information received from Sub- Registrar, Chandigarh, that House No. 510, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh, was purchased by the respondent for ` 5 lacs whereas the fair market value thereof was ` 8.45 lacs, a notice was issued to the respondent under Section 269 F (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) approving the acquisition of the house. The Tribunal accepted the appeal filed by the assessee holding that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 455 dated 16.5.1986, no proceedings in the matter for acquisition of property could be initiated. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that reliance on the aforesaid circular was totally misplaced considering the fact that proceedings had already been initiated and the same could be dropped if the value of the property was less than ` 5 lacs whereas in the present case the value of the property was ` 5 lacs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the submissions made. The circular provides that the proceedings under Section 269 F(6) of the Act will not be initiated in respect of an immovable property of which the apparent consideration was ` 5 lacs or less. It is only that in the subsequent line where the direction was for dropping of the proceedings already initiated that it was mentioned that the value of the property should be below ` 5 lacs which is in contradiction to the spirit of the circular. The intention seems to be for dropping the proceedings where the apparent consideration is ` 5 lacs or less. Admittedly in the present case the consideration was ` 5 lacs. ITA No. 1 of 1988 (2) Considering the aforesaid fact, we do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in accepting the appeal filed by the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.9.2010 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) vs Judge