M.C. AGARWAL, J.M. Order These are two appeals by purchasers of property being land and building forming part of plot No. 56, Block No. 10, Golf Links, New Delhi, which has been ordered to be acquired under s. 269F of IT Act, 1961 ( Act ). 2. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Departmental Representative and have perused material placed before us. 3 . Shri Amar Kumar Kapoor and Shri Ram Kapoor, sons of Gurandatta Kapoor were owners of aforesaid property which was sold by them to present appellants Iqbal Chand Khurana and Ashwani Khurana, who are father and son respectively, by sale deed dt. 21st Aug., 1984. Prior to execution o f sale deed, agreement to sell had been executed by aforesaid vendors in favour of vendees on 7th Feb., 1984. property in question is situate on leasehold land measuring 1250 sq. yards. lessor is Government of India. lease deed dt. 16th Aug., 1962 was executed on behalf of President of India in favour of aforesaid vendors. lease was effective from 3rd March, 1952. Under terms of lease before any assignment or transfer of lease property, lessee had to obtain from lessor approval in writing of assignment or transfer and lessor is entitled to claim and recover portion of unearned increase (i.e., difference between premium already paid and current market value) in value of land, decision of lessor in this behalf shall be final ; amount to be recovered being 50 per cent of unearned increase. Under agreement to sell entered into between vendors and appellants, latter had agreed to pay up to sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards payment in respect of unearned increase payable to Government of India and they had in addition agreed to pay price of Rs. 37,50,000 to vendors as consideration for property in question. sum of Rs. 10,26,362.50 was actually paid to Government of India in respect of its share of unearned increase and out of this purchasers contributed Rs. 10 lakhs in accordance with terms of agreement to sell. sale deed was ultimately executed in favour of appellants on 21st Aug., 1984 in which consideration for sale was mentioned as Rs. 37,50,000 only. There was no reference in sale deed to sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid to Government of India. 4. On receipt of requisite information competent authority, i.e., IAC, Acquisition Range, New Delhi made some enquiries and even referred matter to Valuation Officer. He also deputed inspector who reported fair market value of this property at Rs. 61,22,990. Valuation Officer, however, had reported that apparent consideration shown by purchasers at Rs. 37,50,000 was acceptable. learned competent authority was of opinion that Valuation Officer s report was not correct and valuation as reported by inspector was more reliable. difference between fair market value as reported by inspector (Rs. 61,22,990) and apparent consideration (which competent authority took at Rs. 37,50,000) being 63.2 per cent of apparent consideration, learned competent authority felt satisfied that conditions for initiating proceedings for acquisition under s. 269C of Act existed. He, therefore, recorded his reasons on 14th May, 1985 and initiated proceedings for acquisition by getting requisite notification published in Extraordinary Gazette dt. 25th May, 1985. 5 . During course of preliminary enquiry also, notices were served on purchasers and they had participated in preliminary enquiry and they were duly served with requisite notice under s. 269D of Act as well. purchasers filed written reply before competent authority asserting that report of Valuation Officer was report of expert and should not have been ignored. purchasers asserted that consideration paid by them for acquiring property as mentioned in agreement to sell and sale deed was true consideration and represented fair market value of property. It was contended that inspector s report has been wrongly acted upon and same was based on sale which was not comparable. purchasers cited sale instance of property No. 3 in Block No. 10, Golf Links and on that basis justified correctness of consideration paid by them. It was also contended that there was no material before competent authority to have reason to believe that understatement in consideration was with object of avoiding taxes and no proceedings for consideration was with object of avoiding taxes and no proceedings for acquisition could, therefore, be initiated. vendors did not contest proceedings. 6 . learned competent authority held that fair market value of property in question as on date of transfer was Rs. 61,25,750, apparent consideration was only Rs. 37,50,000 as mentioned in sale deed and that since fair market value exceeded apparent consideration by more than 25 per cent, understatement was presumed to be with object of tax avoidance. learned competent authority, therefore, with prior approval of CIT, ordered acquisition of property in question. 7 . At hearing before us, learned counsel for assessee moved application dt. 6th Oct., 1986 praying that assessee be allowed to take up following additional ground : "That competent authority did not publish notice in Official Gazette for acquisition within stipulated period of 9 months inasmuch as Official Gazette became available to public only on 13th June, 1985 whereas last date for publication was 31st May, 1985." No such contention was raised by assessee before learned competent authority and no reason is given either in application or in course of arguments before us for omission. Similarly no reason was advanced why such ground was not raised in memorandum of appeal initially or at earliest opportunity. order sheet will show that this appeal had earlier been heard in March 1986. prayer in question is, therefore, highly belated and delay is not explained. In view of this delay we do not find any justification for permission to allow this plea to be raised because assessee only wants to raise technical point which would require taking of additional evidence about date on which Gazette was printed and on which date it was made available to public for sale. No prejudice is alleged to have been caused to appellants on this account because as already mentioned competent authority had associated assessee in preliminary enquiry itself and assessee knew that acquisition proceedings are under contemplation. For these reasons, we reject assessee s application for admission of additional ground. 8 . As regards grounds already raised in appeal, learned counsel for assessee first challenged initiation of proceedings for acquisition. It was contended that initiation of proceedings was made on basis of report of inspector, who was not expert in valuation of property, and by ignoring report of expert appointed by Government, i.e., Valuation Officer. As already mentioned, learned competent authority had made reference to Valuation Officer under s. 269L of Act, for determining market value of property in question. By report dt. 12th April, 1985 (copy placed at pages 27 to 33 of paper book) Valuation Officer reported that consideration of Rs. 37,50,000 declared by transferees was acceptable. learned competent authority found that report was not complete as basis on which District Valuation Officer had relied for reporting that consideration shown by assessee was acceptable had not been given. learned competent authority, therefore, directed inspector to inspect property and report about its valuation. inspector reported value at Rs. 61,22,990 vide report dt. 7th May, 1985. In arriving at this valuation he relied upon sale instance of property at Jor Bagh, colony which, in his opinion, was comparable to Golf Links area where property in question was situated. On basis of inspector s report learned competent authority felt satisfied that fair market value of property in question was more than consideration shown to have passed between purchasers and seller. learned counsel for assessee contended that inspector s report could not have been acted upon in face of report of Government valuer. He drew our attention to s. 269L(1)(a) wherein competent authority is required to appoint Valuation Officer to determine fair market value of property. learned counsel laid stress on use of word determine as against word estimate used in cl. (b) of s. 269L(1). It was contended that word determine according to dictionary meaning means to settle, to decide and to give decision and, therefore, determination of fair market value by Valuation Officer is binding on competent authority. This contention, in our opinion, is not acceptable. word determine does not appear to have been used in sense contended by learned counsel. Sec. 269L is prefaced by heading Assistance by Valuation Officer . If legislature had any such intention, then specific provision to that effect would have been incorporated in s. 269L on same lines as has been done by incorporating sub-s. (6) in s. 16A of WT Act, 1957. In their objections before learned competent authority, purchasers had specifically stated that jurisdiction of Valuation Officer was advisory in character. In CIT vs. Trustees of Shri Maneklal Chunnilal Shah Trust (1979) 8 CTR (Guj) 147 : (1980) 125 ITR 417 (Guj), it was held by Hon ble Gujarat High Court that Valuation Officer, who is called upon to determine fair market value of any particular immovable property acts as expert authority and advisor to competent authority for purpose of enabling competent authority to determine fair market value either prima facie at stage of initiation of proceedings or finally at time when he has to decide question whether property should be acquired or not. Thus, function of Valuation Officer is merely that of advisor and it cannot be said that at any stage of proceedings, competent authority cannot ignore Valuation Officer s report and rely on other material and to come to different conclusion. This contention of learned counsel for assessee is, therefore, rejected. 9 . next contention on behalf of appellants was that even if function of Valuation Officer was merely that of advisor, Valuation Officer being expert his report should not have been ignored. learned competent authority has mentioned that Valuation Officer s report was incomplete. copy of that report was placed before us and is found on paper book. It was contended before us that in first report submitted by Valuation Officer, basis of report and manner in which value was determined was not disclosed. As matter of fact in report dt. 12th April, 1985 learned Valuation Officer did not determine fair market value of property himself. What he stated was that consideration of Rs. 37,50,000 shown by purchasers was acceptable. It was sometimes later during course of proceedings that Valuation Officer submitted relevant details. Therefore, when competent authority had to decide whether or not to initiate proceedings for acquisition, those details were not there and report of Valuation Officer was, therefore, substantially defective. So much so that it mentioned consideration at Rs. 37,50,000 while in fact purchasers parted with Rs. 47,50,000 out of which Rs. 10 lakhs were paid to Government of India towards its share in unearned increase and balance of Rs. 37,50,000 was paid to vendors. fact that Valuation Officer had agreement to sell with him when he compiled his report and omission to make any reference to sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, provided sufficient grounds to doubt credibility of valuer s report. In our view, therefore, there was nothing wrong in conduct of learned competent authority in deputing inspector to make enquiry. 10. As regards propriety of initiation of acquisition proceedings on basis of inspector s report, learned counsel for purchasers contended that inspector was not expert and his report, therefore, did not provide sufficient material to justify initiation of acquisition proceedings. It is true that inspector was not expert in art of valuing immovable properties. learned Departmental Representative did not contend that inspector concerned in this case had any formal training in valuation of immovable properties. That, however, does not mean that inspector s report cannot be acted at all. All persons who purchase and sell immovable properties are not experts in valuation, nor do people always take help of practising valuers for determining what consideration should be charged or paid for particular transaction. purchasers and sellers know at what rates properties are being sold and purchased in neighbourhood and that is always basis for determining price that has to be charged or paid for particular property and it is well settled that determination of market value of property involves some guess work. In case before us inspector inspected property in question and he adopted as exemplar sale of property situated in Jor Bagh. Except that size of that property was smaller than property in question, learned counsel for purchasers did not contend that Jor Bagh locality was in any way superior to Golf Links. No mala fides or apparent mistakes were ascribed to inspector. Therefore, in our view, at stage of initiation inspector s report did provide competent authority sufficient material to have reason to believe that apparent consideration for transaction in question was less than fair market value of property and this difference was more than permissible limit. At stage of initiation of proceedings competent authority is not required to decide things finally and it has only to make prima facie opinion. inspector s report was, in our view, sufficient to provide competent authority sufficient material to show prima facie that consideration was not truly stated in sale deed and, therefore, to have reason to believe in terms of s. 269C. We are, therefore, unable to accept contention of learned counsel for appellants that initiation of proceedings for acquisition on basis of inspector s report, particularly in presence of Valuation Officer s report, was defective. 11. It was then contended that learned competent authority did not record any reasons for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property and did not apply its mind to facts before initiating proceedings. This contention is absolutely without force. At pages 51, 52 and 53 forming part of assessee s own paper book, we have copy of reasons recorded by learned competent authority. These reasons were recorded on 14th May, 1985, as is evident from pages 49 and 50 of paper book. contention that no reasons were recorded has, therefore, no force. 12. As regards application of mind, it was pointed out by learned counsel for appellants that on inspector s report, learned competent authority had merely written one word seen and made his signatures. photocopy of inspector s report is placed at pp. 59 to 61 of paper book. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Amrit Sports Industries (1983) 37 CTR (P&H) 290 : (1984) 145 ITR 231 (P&H). In that case competent authority had made endorsement seen, initiate action on inspector s report and no reasons were recorded by competent authority before initiating proceedings. It was in these circumstances that initiation of proceedings was held to be without application of mind and, consequently bad. position in present case is entirely different. inspector submitted his report on 7th May, 1985. endorsement seen made by competent authority does not bear any date. This endorsement does not say that any action is to be initiated for acquisition. For that competent authority recorded his reasons separately as discussed above. perusal of those reasons would show that competent authority above. perusal of those reasons would show that competent authority applied its mind to facts and circumstances of case. This is also evident from fact that even before competent authority had been enquiring into matter and had even deputed inspector to make enquiries when it found that report of Valuation Officer was not complete. It is, therefore, not case in which it could be said that proceedings have been mechanically initiated without application of mind in fair and proper manner. 13. Lastly, it was contended that initiation was not proper because in reasons recorded by competent authority it has not made any reference to Valuation Officer s report and has not given any reasons for ignoring same. We are unable to find any obligation on competent authority to discuss everything in reasons for initiation of proceedings. He has referred to inspector s report and that in our view, was sufficient. Mere omission to explain why valuer s report was not being accepted would not invalidate initiation of proceedings particularly when Valuation Officer s report was patently incomplete and ignored huge sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. For reasons discussed above, we find contentions raised on behalf of appellants challenging initiation of proceedings for acquisition unacceptable. We hold that proceedings were validly initiated. 14. As is evident from facts narrated above, there is dispute in this case whether sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid by purchasers for payment of Government s share of unearned increase in value of land is to be treated as part of price paid by appellants for purchase of this property. There is no dispute that such amount was actually paid by appellants in addition to sum of Rs. 37,50,000 paid to vendors aforesaid. learned competent authority has taken sum of Rs. 37,50,000 only as apparent consideration for property in question. This is because term apparent consideration has been defined in s. 269A of Act, meaning consideration as specified in instrument of transfer. In this case instrument of transfer is sale deed executed by vendors in favour of present appellants. In that document, copy of which is to be found at pages 43 to 48 of paper book, there is no reference to sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid to Government of India and document says that property is being transferred to appellants in consideration of Rs. 37,50,000. learned counsel for appellants contended that in this case it was agreed between vendors and appellants that latter would pay up to Rs. 10 lakhs towards Government s share of unearned increase and such term was specifically recorded in agreement to sell dt. 17th Feb., 1984 (pages 7 to 11). learned counsel for appellants contended that agreement to sell aforesaid is part of transaction and should be treated as part of sale deed and that, if so done, total amount of Rs. 47,50,000 paid by appellants would become apparent consideration, which in fact, is actual apparent consideration paid out by purchasers. He did not cite any authority for this proposition of law and we are unable to find any force in it. agreement to sell is mere agreement and does not convey any immovable property to purchaser. Therefore, it cannot by any imagination be called to be instrument of transfer or part thereof. instrument of transfer is document that actually conveys property to purchaser and that is sale deed executed between parties. term apparent consideration has been defined in Act and in view of that definition only amount mentioned in instrument of transfer, that is sale deed, can be taken to be apparent consideration. legislature had special purpose in defining term apparent consideration and was probably alive to situation in which it might be claimed that apart from consideration mentioned in instrument of transfer, there was some other consideration also that passed between parties. In our view, therefore, learned competent authority was right in taking for purposes of acquisition, apparent consideration at Rs. 37,50,000 only. 15. question, however, is whether sum of Rs. 10 lakhs admittedly paid by appellants for acquiring this property as share of unearned increase payable to Government can be totally ignored. This has been so done by learned competent authority and learned Departmental Representative stuck to same line of action placing reliance on definition of apparent consideration given in Act. In this case, land on which house in question is built is owned by Government and vendors aforesaid held it on perpetual lease from Government. Clause III(13) of lease deed provides as under : "The lessee shall before any assignment or transfer of said premises hereby demised or any part thereof obtain from lessor or such officer or body as lessor may authorise in this behalf approval in writing of said assignment or transfer and all such assignees and transferees and heirs of lessee shall be bound by all covenants and conditions herein contained and be answerable in all respects thereof. Provided also that lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover portion of unearned increase (i.e., difference between premium already paid and current market value) in value of land decision of lessor in this behalf shall be final at time of transfer (whether such transfer is entire site or only part thereof) amount to be recovered being 50 per cent of unearned increase." This means that vendors had only leasehold right in land and they h d no absolute power to transfer their leasehold rights. If they intended to transfer leasehold rights they had to obtain prior approval of Government and Government had right to claim its share of unearned increase. It is in compliance with this obligation that vendors paid amount of Rs. 10,26,362.50 to Government as its share of unearned increase and purchasers paid sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to vendors on that account. payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, therefore, cannot be totally ignored. In view of definition of apparent consideration, this amount cannot be treated as part of apparent consideration, but then person can transfer only such rights as he has in property. vendors in this case had no right to transfer leasehold rights without prior approval of Government which was to be granted only after Government s share of unearned increase had been paid. Therefore, if we exclude this payment from apparent consideration then market value of property will have to be determined in condition in which property was sought to be transferred in unauthorised manner, that is, without transfer having been approved by Government. Clause IV of lease deed takes care of such situation and gives lessor, i.e., Government of India right to re-enter. That means title of vendors would be defective and we will have to take into consideration value of property with such defective title. learned competent authority has not determined what would be value of this property if it was proposed to be transferred without obtaining prior approval of lessor. We are of opinion that roughly we can reduce fair market value of property as determined for valid title and then deduct therefrom sum of Rs. 10,26,362.50 payable to Government to arrive at value of property if it was sold without approval of lessor. Ignoring payment of unearned increase altogether and for all purposes will, in our view, be not possible and would result in patent injustice which cannot be assumed to have been intended. 16. next contention made by learned counsel for appellants was that fair market value of property in question was not properly determined by competent authority. According to him, consideration paid by appellants was proper amount of price that this property could fetch. In support of his arguments learned counsel referred to certain rulings to show what considerations prevail for determining fair market value of particular property. learned Departmental Representative, on other hand, contended that fair market value of property in question was properly determined by competent authority on basis of sale price of another property and he too relied on certain rulings to support his contentions. Before proceedings further it would be better if we refer to various rulings cited on either side. 17. CIT vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel (1979) 13 CTR (Guj) 27 : (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj), is judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court on which reliance was placed from either side. Laying down principles for determining fair market value of property in proceedings for acquisition under Act, Hon ble High Court observed that in fixing fair market value of immovable property it would not be safe to import wholly principles enunciated by Courts in ascertaining market value while determining amount of compensation for acquisition of property or land since perspective of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that under Chapter XXA of IT Act are different. In perspective of acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA which are penal provisions having acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA which are penal provisions having f r reaching repercussions competent authority must be satisfied and assured by cogent, reliable and relevant evidence that fair market value of property in question exceeds apparent consideration by prescribed margin. Hon ble High Court further observed that it would be too hazardous t o prefer one of recognised methods of valuation which may be advantageous to cause of Revenue and arrive at estimate of fair market value of property on that basis. Such lopsided approach on part of competent authority would not be in consonance with burden of proof required to be discharged in such quasi-criminal proceedings. It would be virtually acting on too slender material since decision of competent authority to acquire would expose not only transferee to consequences of being deprived of property but also transferor to liability of capital gains under s. 52 of Act. Hon ble High Court went on to say that it is incumbent on competent authority to apply two or all of recognised methods so that he may resort to checks and counter checks in arriving at fair market value. competent authority should apply well known methods, viz., land and building method, contractor s method, rental or yield method and comparable sales method and work out each estimation of market value by application of all four methods and for purposes of counter check compare it with municipal valuation for purpose of property tax assessment and adopt generally minimum valuation unless there are special facts and circumstances where he may be constrained to apply one or two methods only and/or adopt higher valuation rather than minimum one for reasons to be recorded by him. Reliance was also placed on Smt. Lalita Todi vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 40 (Pat) in which Hon ble High Court held that in ascertaining price of property all factors having any depreciating or appreciating effect on value of property had to be taken into account and if considerations germane for such ascertainments have not been taken into account or if irrelevant considerations have entered enquiry, finding becomes vitiated in law. 18. In Wenger & Co. vs. DVO (1979) 8 CTR (Del) 16 : (1978) 115 ITR 648(Del), Hon ble Delhi High Court approved valuation of self-occupied portion of building on land and building method. It was further observed that market value has to be ascertained by considering sale of similar properties in same neighbourhood or similar environment. If there are no such instances of sale available then capitalisation of rent or making some sort of comparative evaluation of sales of other properties is acceptable mode of valuation. This was case relating to valuation of building for wealth-tax purposes. 1 9 . learned counsel for appellants placed reliance also on judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mani Singh Avtar Singh vs. IAC (1985) 115 ITR 233 (P&H) in which Hon ble High Court held that where for determining value of bigger piece of property instances of sale of smaller plots in different areas were considered, acquisition was not proper. As already stated in case before us competent authority has used as exemplar sale of property in Jor Bagh colony and has ignored exemplar relied upon by appellants in respect of sale of another property situate in Golf Links itself. To support his argument that such course was possible learned Departmental Representative relied upon judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Subbas Malharirao Kachure vs. IAC (1986) 26 Taxman 407. In that case of acquisition under Act, property proceeded against was in Bhuspet sector of Hubli City. Hon ble High Court held that sales of properties in more important area known as Lamington Road could be considered to determine fair market value of property situate in Bhuspet. 2 0 . On behalf of appellants, reliance was also placed on K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). That was case involving assessment of capital gains and it was held by Hon ble Supreme Court that burden lies on Revenue to prove that full value of consideration in respect of transfer is shown at lesser figure than that actually received by assessee. learned counsel pointed out that in case before us there is no evidence to show that appellants actually paid something more than Rs. 47,50,000 or that purchasers received more than that and that in absence of such proof acquisition was invalid. learned Departmental Representative countered this argument by referring to provisions of s. 269C(2) which creates presumption in favour of Revenue provisions of s. 269C(2) which creates presumption in favour of Revenue in case fair market value exceeds apparent consideration by more than 25 per cent. learned Departmental Representative contended that in provisions relating to assessment of capital gains no such presumption has been created and, therefore, law as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case cannot be applied to acquisition proceedings. We are in complete agreement with this argument. Special provisions have been made in sub-s. (2) of s. 269C creating presumption in favour of Revenue and, therefore, principles laid in case of K.P. Varghese (supra) cannot properly be applied. 2 1 . Having regard to various rulings relied on either side we now proceed to find whether determination of fair market value of property by learned competent authority at Rs. 61,25,750 is proper or consideration paid by assessee for acquiring this property represents fair market value of property. 22. Before proceeding further it would be better to have idea of nature of property in question. As already stated bungalow in question is situate on land measuring 1,250 sq. yards taken on perpetual lease from Government of India. lessees have to pay Rs. 940 per month as ground rent. ground rent was liable to revision from 1st Jan., 1982 and thereafter at end of each successive period of 30 years (clause VIII of agreement). enhancement has to be limited to 50 per cent of increase in letting value of site without buildings at rate of which enhancement is made. Although transfer in question has taken place after revision in ground rent had become due, ground rent payable from 1st Jan., 1982 does not appear to have yet been determined. Government before permitting transfer to present purchasers has obtained from them undertaking to pay revised ground rent (see pp. 40 and 41). lease deed provides that lessee cannot use land for any trade or business and can use it only for building double storey residential building for private dwelling house for one or two families in all with barsati on second storey (see cl. III(7)). It is also provided in same clause that lessee shall not do or suffer to be done thereon any act or thing whatsoever which in opinion of lessor . . . may be annoyance or disturbance to President of India or his tenants in new capital of Delhi. Clause III(5) prohibits lessee from erecting, without previous consent of lessor, any building other than and except building erected thereon at date of lease. 23. aforesaid are some of important conditions that may have bearing on valuation. property in question is 2 1/2 storey bungalow and total built up area was 6,417.57 sq. ft. including garages and servant quarters. This is as reported by assessee s valuer, who had visited this property little before execution of sale deed. Government valuer had, however, reported constructed area at 738.80 sq. mts. as found by him at time of inspection in April 1985, i.e., several months after sale in question. Similarly inspector has reported built up area at 7,477 sq. ft. purchasers had contended that they got property extensively renovated after purchase at cost of Rs. 4,57,000. learned competent authority has estimated cost of construction of property as existing on date of sale at Rs. 9 lakhs and cost of land at Rs. 52,25,750. In valuing land learned competent authority has adopted rate of Rs. 5,000 per sq. mt. for land in question measuring 1,250 sq. yards or 1,045.15 per sq. mt. 2 4 . first contention that was raised on behalf of appellants regarding determination of fair market value of property was that report of Government valuer should have been accepted and acted upon as he was expert. We have already dealt with this point in some detail and agreed with competent authority that valuer s report was only fit to be rejected. In his initial report he did not determine fair market value and merely reported that consideration shown by appellants may be accepted and he had not referred to sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. In details filed subsequently he placed reliance on certain sale deed in another colony, namely, Friends Colony without mentioning distance from property in question and other factors which may show that two localities are similar in nature. Further he has relied upon sales of smaller plots with different floor area ratios. It may be mentioned here that FAR (floor area ratio) permitted in Golf Links area is .812 while FAR in Friends Colony was much more. learned Valuation Officer did make some adjustments for said difference but they are Valuation Officer did make some adjustments for said difference but they are all mathematical exercises which may not lead to correct results. Government valuer s report was, therefore, in our view, rightly rejected by learned competent authority. 25. But question still remains as to what competent authority should do if it finds report of valuer submitted under s. 269L as unacceptable. As observed by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel s case (supra), competent authority must be satisfied and assured by cogent, reliable and relevant evidence. legislature was alive to fact that officers employed in IT Department are not architects and engineers and are, therefore, not experts in valuation and they would generally need assistance of experts. It is for this reason that s. 269L has been enacted for assistance of competent authority. legislature was also probably alive to fact that some of Valuation Officers may not be efficient enough and may not determine fair market value in acceptable manner. That is why, probably, that legislature has not made report of Valuation Officer binding on competent authority and has not debarred competent authority from making reference to another Valuation Officer. In present case, determination of fair market value of property in question by competent authority is based exclusively on report of inspector and it was, in our view, one of fittest cases in which after initiating proceedings, instead of hurrying through same and passing acquisition order within very small period of about two months competent authority should have made fresh reference to some other Valuation Officer and collected some more evidence to reassure itself and appellate authorities that fair market value as determined by it is closest to reality. 26. Coming to inspector s report, we find that he has determined fair market value of this property by adopting as exemplar sale of property No. 175 situate in Jor Bagh colony. That was house built on plot of land measuring 375 sq. yards. sale took place in January 1983, i.e., about 18 months prior to sale in question. consideration paid for property was stated to be Rs. 18 lakhs. inspector mentioned that Jor Bagh, Sunder Nagar and Diplomatic Enclave are colonies which are comparable with Golf Links where property in question is situate. inspector started his calculations by adopting basic rate of land at Rs. 4,713 per sq. mt. material part of inspector s report may be reproduced below : "Property No. 175 in Block No. 172, Jor Bagh Nursery was sold in month of January 1983. area of property in Jor Bagh is 375 sq. yards or 313.54 sq. mts. and was sold for Rs. 18,00,000. land rate works out to Rs. . 4,713 per sq. mt. Taking it as base rate, other adjustments for time gap and situation and area of property are made as under : Rs. Base rate 4,713 Adjustment for time gap of 18 months. This is based on + increase in gold price from January 1983 to August 1984 15 per because gold rate gives good index cent Adjustment for situation and location. subject property far better situated in good locality. + On this account we can easily make addition of at least 15 per 15 per cent cent Adjustment for size of plot . property taken as sample sale instance is small in size, i.e., 375 sq. yards as compared to property in question which has area of 1,250 sq. yards. Therefore, deduction of 20 per 20 per cent will be reasonable and would be allowed. net cent result is as under Rs. 4,713 Base rate per sq. mt. Add : . For time gap (15 per cent) and situation (15 per cent), i.e., Rs. 30 per cent of 4,713 1,414 Rs. . 6,127 Less : . Rs. For size of plot 20 per cent of 4,713 942 Rs. . 5,185 land rate is thus arrived at Rs. 5,185 per sq. mt. I apply rate of Rs. 5,000 per sq. mt. At this rate value of land comes to Rs. 52,25,750. Cost of construction total covered area as shown by approved valuer in his report copy of which was submitted by transferor is as under : Main Block Garage Block G.F. 2,760 sq. ft. G.F. 457 sq. ft. F.F. 2,028 sq. ft. G.F. 602 sq. ft. (servant qrs) S.F. 571 sq. ft. F.F. 1,059 sq. ft. 5,359 sq. ft. 2,118 sq. ft. Total covered area of main block and garage block comes to 7,477 sq. ft. year of construction is stated to be 1955-56. I apply rate of Rs. 190 per sq. ft. and accordingly value of building is determined as under : In absence of any evidence regarding renovation and alteration and in view of DVO s report quoted above it is difficult to accept contention of transferee that entire renovation work was done after property was purchased by transferee. Therefore, I estimate cost of construction at Rs. 8,97,240 for main block and garage block. In view of facts mentioned above fair market value of subject property is estimated as under : . Rs. Land value 52,25,750 Cost of construction 8,97,240 Total 61,22,990 Apparent consideration declared 37,50,000 Difference 23,72,990" On behalf of assessee another sale of property No. 3 in Block No. 10 of Golf Links itself was relied upon. As stated in assessee s reply at page 57 of paper book, that property consisted of plot of land measuring 2,471.5 sq. yards on which two bungalows were built in year 1960 each of which is 2 1/2 storeyed house containing six bedrooms each with attached bathrooms, two garages and four servant quarters. total built up area was said to exceed 16,500 sq. ft. It was admitted at hearing before us that proceedings under s. 269C were initiated in respect of that property also and District Valuation Officer determined value of land of that property at Rs. 57 lakhs and of constructions at Rs. 11.41 lakhs giving land rate of Rs. 2,306 per sq. yard and that of buildings at Rs. 65.2 per sq. ft. At those rates, according to assessee, value of property now under consideration, i.e., 56, Golf Links, would come to Rs. 33,70,000 only. 27. As is evident, from both sides single instance of sale was relied upon and no other material was placed on record to ensure that results obtained by adopting either of exemplars were fairly correct. 2 8 . sale in respect of property No. 10/3, Golf Links took place in January 1983 that is at almost same time when property of other exemplar (Jor Bagh property) was sold. As stated in order passed by competent authority apparent consideration in that transaction was Rs. 56 lakhs but competent authority determined fair market value at Rs. 84,22,000 and initiated proceedings for acquisition. Those proceedings were pending when competent authority passed impugned order in July 1985 n d when this appeal was heard before us, it was contended that those proceedings are still pending. It is matter of regret that same competent authority concluded present proceedings with such great hurry while proceedings in respect of another property which could have provided better evidence for determination of fair market value of property involved in present appeal have not been concluded. learned competent authority rejected transaction in respect of property No. 10/3, Golf Links solely for reason that proceedings for acquisition were pending in respect of that property. In our view, it would have been proper to conclude those proceedings first so that there could be better evidence. 2 9 . As stated by competent authority in its order competent authority adopted fair market value of property No. 10/3 Golf Links at Rs. 84,22,000 while value as reported by Valuation Officer was only about Rs. 57 lakhs. According to learned counsel for assessee even if fair market value of property No. 10/3, Golf Links was taken at Rs. 84,22,000 then also fair market value of property in question (56, Golf Links) would be only about Rs. 47 lakhs as area of land and buildings is almost half. This contention is mathematically correct. learned competent authority as well as learned Departmental Representative have not explained how in face of determination of value of property No. 10/3, Golf Links at Rs. 84,22,000 by competent authority itself, fair market value of property in question would exceed Rs. 47,50,000 by more than 15 per cent. In order under appeal, however, misconceived explanation has been offered by learned competent authority by referring to judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in S.R.M.S. Rao Bahadur Rani of Buyyer vs. Collector of Madras (1968) 2 SCJ 869. He has quoted following observation : "It seems to be only fair that highest value shown in sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying different course. There is no reason why average circumstances justifying different course. There is no reason why average of sale deeds should have been taken in instant case." learned competent authority stated that since rates in respect of Jor Bagh property were higher it were those rates that should be preferred for determining fair market value of property in question and, therefore, he declined to use as exemplar sale in respect of Golf Links property. This line of approach, in our view, is wholly untenable in view of very different nature of proceedings. judgment referred to by competent authority appears to be one relating to acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act where land is compulsorily acquired against wishes of owner for public purpose. Under Act, property is acquired as punishment to those who are found to have acquired property at higher price but have shown consideration at lower figure in order to avoid taxes. determination of fair market value in proceedings, therefore, cannot be same. As observed by Hon ble Supreme Court in case under Land Acquisition Act, owner should be paid what could be highest value that he might have got in private sale but in case under s. 269C property can be acquired only if apparent consideration is less than what could be minimum price which could be available to vendor. We have already referred to observations of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel s case (supra) where their Lordships have observed that it would not be safe to import wholly principles enunciated by Courts in ascertaining market value while determining amount of compensation for acquisition of property or land since perspective of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act and that under Chapter XX-A of IT Act are different. learned Departmental Representative also adopted same line of reasoning as adopted by learned competent authority and for reasons just mentioned, we are of view that this approach is wholly incorrect. Property No. 10/3, Golf Links was situate in same locality and its sale, therefore, provided very good exemplar unless competent authority could point out cogent reasons for rejecting same. As already stated even if fair market value as determined by competent authority for initiating proceedings in respect of 10/3, Golf Links, i.e., Rs. 84,22,000 is accepted as correct fair market value of property, fair market value of property in question on that basis would be only about Rs. 47,50,000 which is consideration paid by assessee. 30. It is unfortunate that while relying on sale transaction of Jor Bagh property learned competent authority did not bring on record copy of instrument of transfer and other connected documents to show what are relevant factors governing price, what were circumstances under which sale took place and who are parties to transaction. Similarly although appellants relied upon sale in respect of property situate in Golf Links itself they too did not bring on record copies of sale deed, lease deed, etc. Nor is report of Valuation Officer or of inspector/competent authority determining value at Rs. 84,22,000 on record. Therefore, we have nothing before us except figures relating to area of land, date of sale and consideration paid. Therefore, none of parties brought cogent evidence on record. 31. As regard sale instance in respect of Jor Bagh property, it is evident that that was smaller plot of 375 sq. yards or 313.54 sq. mts. area of property in question is almost four times larger and, therefore, that transaction cannot properly be called to be good exemplar. Further in absence of relevant documents relating to that property we cannot determine what are relevant advantages/obligations pertaining to that property and in what respect, there is identity or difference with property in question. inspector in his report had proceeded by mentioning that land rates in respect of Jor Bagh property works out to Rs. 4,713 per sq. mt. He has not given any basis for that. As is evident area of 313.54 sq. mts. with some building thereon was sold for Rs. 18 lakhs. inspector has not mentioned extent and quality of building and has not explained how he has determined land rate at Rs. 4,713 per sq. mt. In same manner there is nothing in order under appeal passed by competent authority to explain this most important point. Unless we know value of building, we cannot determine price of land and vice versa and if single consideration is paid for land and building. Since copy of sale deed has not been brought on record it is also not possible to find if there is any indication therein to find out what was extent of buildings standing on that plot and if any separate price was mentioned for buildings standing on that plot and if any separate price was mentioned for land. 3 2 . learned competent authority has mentioned that Valuation Officer had done merely mathematical exercise, but he has approved similar exercise undertaken by his own inspector. perusal of inspector s report would show that his report is nothing but mathematical exercise based on certain assumptions. Although proceedings for acquisition under Act are of quasi-criminal nature and expose parties to very serious consequences, learned competent authority has not bothered to improve upon inspector s report and furnish missing links. It is also important to note that for determining fair market value of property in question, competent authority not only deputed inspector but also personally inspected property accompanied by inspector. However, neither inspector nor competent authority appears to have visited and inspected Jor Bagh property, sale of which is relied upon by competent authority as good exemplar. We are unable to understand how and when property was neither inspected by competent authority nor by inspector or Valuation Officer, land rate in respect of that property could be determined. It may be mentioned here that it is value of land which was bone of contention on either side. value of constructions existing on property in dispute was not subject of any serious controversy before us. 33. On behalf of appellants great reliance was placed on letter of land and development officer fixing rates of land for various colonies for realisation of unearned increase. said letter No. J-2 20 11/3/80-LD (DOI) dt. 27th July, 1983 along with its schedule is found at pages 13 to 16 of paper book. This letter was issued by land and development officer fixing market rates of land in various colonies of Delhi and New Delhi for purposes of realisation of Government s share of unearned increase. This letter extends rates fixed by earlier letter dt. 21st Oct., 1981 for two more years w.e.f. 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1985. According to schedule market rate for residential lands in Golf Links and Jor Bagh colonies has been fixed at Rs. 2,000 per sq. mt. or about Rs. 1,800 per sq. yd. learned counsel for assessee contended that this letter shows that Government did not enhance rates fixed by earlier letter dt. 21st Oct., 1981 which shows that there was static trend in prices of land and that if price of property in question is determined at these rates, fair market value would be much lower than what has been paid by assessee. learned Departmental Representative, on other hand, contended that this letter is not conclusive of market rates and was not issued under any statute. According to learned Departmental Representative, by this letter rates were fixed so that necessity of determining market value may not arise for each transaction separately, as keeping in view innumerable sales throughout territory of Delhi that may be impossible task, Both these arguments have some force. letter cannot be totally ignored nor can it be sole basis for determining fair market value of property in question. We are, however, of view that along with proper exemplars some aid can certainly be derived from rates fixed in this letter because Government must have issued this letter only after its experts had properly investigated into prevailing rates and other factors. 34. For reasons discussed above, we are of opinion that in this case none of parties has brought on record cogent and reliable evidence. This is largely because competent authority hurried through proceedings. In this situation we deem it just, proper and equitable to set aside acquisition order and restore proceedings to competent authority to redecide matter after collecting further evidence in light of observations made above. evidence so procured shall be brought to notice of appellants and copies of relevant documents shall be supplied. appellants will also be permitted to produce such evidence as may be relevant. 35. appeals are accordingly allowed. acquisition order is set aside and matter is restored to learned competent authority for fresh decision in accordance with law in light of our observations and directions stated above. *** ASHWANI KUMAR v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER