JUDGMENT D.D. Varma, I.A.S., C.C.R.A. - This revision has been filled by Gopi Krishna Agarwal against the order dated 15-10-1988 passed by A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Shahjahanpur in case no. 135/86 imposing Rs. 86,020 as deficit in stamp duty and an equal amount of penalty. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that through the impugned deed of sale dated 31-8-1985 executed by one Nirmal Chand Seth, the revisionist purchased bhumidhar. plots nos. 223 and 224, measuring a total area of 4.41 acres of village Chandokha, Pargana Kant, Tahsil and District Shahjahanpur, for a value of Rs. 4,00,000. This land comprised of some constructions also, within boundary walls. Persuant to an inspection by the DIG Registration and also the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps, the document was referred by the Sub-Registrar, Sadar Shahjahanpur to the Collector for determination of proper market value under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. An enquiry was made through Tahsildar who assessed the value of the property at Rs. 14,11,000. On issue of notice, the vendee-revisionist filed objection on various grounds justifying the document having been executed for proper valuation. The learned A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), accepting the valuation made by Tahsildar, imposed deficiency in stamp duty, also penalty as aforesaid, which constitutes the subject-matter of the instant revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned State Representative, and perused the records sent by the lower court. 4. The learned A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), accepting the valuation made by Tahsildar, imposed deficiency in stamp duty, also penalty as aforesaid, which constitutes the subject-matter of the instant revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned State Representative, and perused the records sent by the lower court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that through the impugned instrument, agricultural land and super-structures of the factory comprising of rooms and godown's only were transferred, that old machineries were transferred through a separate deed executed earlier on 9-8-1985 and new machineries were brought to the factory after the execution of the deed and as such the machineries did not form part of transaction, that the subject of the impugned document could only be made liable to be charged with stamp duty under the Stamp Act and as such the lower court erred in adding the value of machinery to the impugned transaction, that the land revenue of these bhumidhari plots was Rs 29.05 and the rate fixed by the Collector under Rule 340 were not taken into consideration while calculating the value of the property, that the value of superstructures and the building should have been assessed according to assumed annual rental value or on assessment made by the local authority, that building and the land appurtenant to it could not be separately valued, that concept of 'fair market value' as defined under the provisions of Income Tax Act resembled to that as provided in Section 47-A of the Act, and clearance of dues by Income Tax Authorities showed that there was nothing untoward in the valuation shown in the document, that in working the Act great caution has to be observed in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression, and regard being had to this object, the consideration as stated in the document should normally be taken to be correctly set forth in the document, as per decision reported in AIR 1974 Mad. 117 , and that the value of the property has been determined illegally by a mode not prescribed in the statute and as such the impugned order of the learned A.D.M. (F and R) deserves to be quashed. 5. 117 , and that the value of the property has been determined illegally by a mode not prescribed in the statute and as such the impugned order of the learned A.D.M. (F and R) deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned State Representative, in reply, submitted that in fact the sale deed was executed in respect of whole sugar mill along with machineriees, and that it could not be valued as an agricultural land on the basis of land revenue, that a detailed enquiry had been carried by Tahsildar which has rightly been accepted by the learned A.D.M. that no document was produced as evidence of the fact that machineries were transferred through a separate deed dated 9-8-1985, that value of land, building and machineries had been properly assessed, that intent of evasion of stamp duty was clear from the recital of the impugned deed itself which did not specify the property sold through the instrument, that it was proved from the evidence adduced that transaction was made of factory with machineries, and that the order of the learned A.D.M. (F and R) does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. I have carefully considered the above arguments and also gone through the records available in file. I would firstly dwell upon the issue of valuation of the property. The learned A.D.M has agreed with the report of the Tahsilar, which is available on the file of the lower court. 6. I have carefully considered the above arguments and also gone through the records available in file. I would firstly dwell upon the issue of valuation of the property. The learned A.D.M has agreed with the report of the Tahsilar, which is available on the file of the lower court. Tahsildar has made the valuation on the following basis : 1- 4-40 ,dM+ Hkwfe] yxkuh 29&05] [kk.Mlkjh m|ksx] vkS|ksfxd {ks= cjsyh&Q:[kkckn ekxZ ds iwjc esa o cq/kokuk&'kkgtgkaiqj ekxZ ds mRrj esa okfil ewY; 30]000@& izfr ,dM+ dh nj ls 4-41x30,000/- = 132300-00 vadu 1]32]300&00 2- ckmUMjksoky o djhc yEckbZ 88 xt] pkSM+kbZ mRrj 74 ehVj] nf{k.k 66 xt 80]000&00 3- rhu QkVd yksgs ds 4]500&00 4- xUus dh ckxkM+ks o V~kyh vkfn] rkSyus dk dkWaVk e; QkmUMs'ku 15]000&00 5- ikWap dejk fVu 'ksM dqy yEckbZ 17&39 eh0 pkSM+kbZ rhu ehVj] eq[; }kj ds mRrj esa 25]000&00 6- dk;kZy; 8 eh0 x 3-5 fyUVsM 15]000&00 7- xksnku 9 eh0 x 7-30 eh0 x 420 eh0 fVu 'ksM] dk;kZy; ds cjkcj esa 25]000&00 8- 11 dejk nf{k.k dks vksj] fVu'ksM] dqy yEckbZ 34-5-x3-5 eh0 55]000&00 9- vkoklh; dejk fVu 'ksM 6-80 x 4 eh0 efUnj ds ikl 20]000&00 10- e.M cM+s fVu 'ksM ds vUnj 11x11x25 eh0 jko Hkjus ds e.M 70]000&00 11- NksVs e.M] fVu'ksM ds vUnj 13-5x11x2-5 ehVj 1120]000&00 12- Lokeh dk vkoklh; Hkou 19x30x9-5 ehVj ckmUMjh lfgr ftlesa 19-30x3-70 eh0 fyUVj 19-3x3 eh0 cjkenk fVu'ksM rFkk 19-3x2-80 lsgu 75]000&00 13- Vw;wc&csy] fo|qr pfyr] dejk o eksVj 7 gklZ ikoj 15]000&00 14- 'kDdj lq[kkus dk ilZ 24x10 eh0 10]000&00 15- xUus dk jl idk dj jkc rFkk 'kDdj rS;kj djus dk dkj[kkuk yEckbZ 27-20x26-70 eh0A Nr ds vUnj 4 HkV~Vks ckjg d<kbZ;ka dh e; QkmUMs'kuA Hkou ds e/; esa fVu dks jksdus ds fy;s xkVj fQDlpj fVu dh Nr dks jksdus ds fy;s xkVj o ,saxy vusdks e'khuksa dks QkmUms'ku rFkk e'khusa 2]50]000&00 16- xUuk isjkbZ dh e'khusa o eksVj mPp 'kfDr'kkyh] pSuy Hkou] nks tujsVj ( ,d NksVk ,d cM+k) 5]00]000&00 14]11]800&00 7. The first item in the above valuation chart is land. The revisionist has contested this valuation and sought to draw the attention of this Court towards Rule 340 and Rule 341 of the Stamp Manual. Rule 340 gives the rates prescribed by Collector which, according to the revisionist, are Rs. 12 000/-per acre, according to which the valuation of the land comes to Rs. 52,920/.. The revisionist has contested this valuation and sought to draw the attention of this Court towards Rule 340 and Rule 341 of the Stamp Manual. Rule 340 gives the rates prescribed by Collector which, according to the revisionist, are Rs. 12 000/-per acre, according to which the valuation of the land comes to Rs. 52,920/.. Rule 341 gives the value of the land as 800 times of the land revenue which, in the instant case, is Rs. 29.05. The value of the land as per this calculation comes to Rs. 23,200/-. The Tahsildar against these two figures, has on the basis of a rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre, calculated the value of land as Rs. 1,32,300. A close study of Rule 341 shows that it gives a minimum market value of the property and the actual market value is to be assessed looking into the potentiality of the land. This has not been denied by the revisionist that an industry was actually running in the land in question, an even at the time of registration the land was not an agricultural land. I, therefore agree with State Representative that it would be erroneous to treat this land as an agricultural land, and its value has to be assessed depending on its future potentiality, its location, and the land use at the time of execution of the document. In support of this, the learned State Representative has quoted A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 140, Mani Ram Sharma v. Union of India. 8. As regards valuation under Rule 340 of the Stamp Manual, the revisionist has enclosed the rates of the Collector in the year 1987 as Annexure-2 to this revision application dated 5-11-1988. However, from Annexure-2, it is clear that the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre taken for the Bhur Awwal land is a rate for the agricultural land, and not for a residential or commercial land. Rates for the commercial land are given on the first two pages of the said enclosure. From the perusal of these two pages it is clear that the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre taken for the said plot is justified and quite reasonable. The learned A.D.M. has dealt with this aspect in his judgment dated 15-10-1988, and has rightly agreed with the Tahsildar to keep the rate of land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 9. From the perusal of these two pages it is clear that the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre taken for the said plot is justified and quite reasonable. The learned A.D.M. has dealt with this aspect in his judgment dated 15-10-1988, and has rightly agreed with the Tahsildar to keep the rate of land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 9. As regards the construction and the machinery, the revisionist has claimed that some of the constructions were done after 31-8-85, the date of execution of the document, and that old machineries were already transferred before the execution of the document, i.e. on 9-8-1985. The learned ADM has dwelt upon both of these points in detail. As regards the construction, he has made a very valid point that if the constructions were done after 31-8-1985, the revisionist should have given some proofs of such construction like getting the map of new constructions approved under the Road-side Control Act etc. The vendee-revisionist has produced no such evidence in the lower court. Even in his revision application dated 5-11-1988 against the order of lower court, the revisionist has made no comments on this point. 10. Similarly, as regards the machinery, the learned Additional Collector has observed that vendeee-revisionist had given no evidence of purchase of the new machineries. For example, purchase receipts etc. The arguments of learned ADM appear to be unassailable, and the revisionist, as has been stated earlier, again has made no comments about these observations in his revision application dated 5-11-1988. 11. The revisionist instead has chosen to argue that while calculating the value of the rooms, tin-sheds, bedding etc., the land underneath has also been taken into account, and thus, the value of the land has been included twice in the calculation of Tahsildar. However, from a perusal of Tahsildars report I find no proof of the same. Tahsildar being a fairly responsible officer it is not fair to assume hypothetically that he would make such mistake in the calculation. The calculation of the value of structures from item no. 2 to item 16 is definitely only of the structures above the ground and does not include the value of land under-neath. I find, therefore, no justification for interfering with the valuation of the Tahsildar, which has been agreed to by the learned A.D.M. (Revenue & Finance). 12. The calculation of the value of structures from item no. 2 to item 16 is definitely only of the structures above the ground and does not include the value of land under-neath. I find, therefore, no justification for interfering with the valuation of the Tahsildar, which has been agreed to by the learned A.D.M. (Revenue & Finance). 12. On the point of valuation of the constructions on the land, and the plant machinery inside, the revisionist has also sought to rely on the assessment of Zila Parishad, according to which the property tax has been assessed for the said factory as Rs. 250/- annually accordingly, the value of the construction comes to only Rs. 6,250/-. There is no provision in the Stamp Act to base the market value assessment on Zila Parishad property tax rate. Further, as has been discussed earlier, the valuation of the construction has to be made on the actual use of the property and, therefore, the so-called Zila Parishad assessment cannot be made sole basis for arriving at the market value. 13. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also raised the issue of assessment of the property by the Income Tax authorities. His argument is that had the property been undervalued, the I.T. Authorities would not have issued an income-tax clearance certificate. Under Section 230 (a) I.T. Act which is a pre-requisite for registration of any document of value more than Rs. 5,000/-. On this point, even if it is accepted that the provisions for assessment of fair market value under the Income Tax Act and in the Stamp Act are almost similar, it cannot be said that the assessment and opinion of income tax officials is binding on the revenue department under the Stamp Act. The learned counsel for the revisionist has, on this point referred to a case Collector v. M/s Mahabir Plantations Ltd., as reported in AIR 1982 Mad. 138 . I have gone through this judgment, and it is true that a reference to the assessment by the income, tax authorities was made in this judgment. However, the facts are different in the two cases. In this case, action under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated for showing lesser consideration in the deed. The proceedings were subsequently dropped. However, the facts are different in the two cases. In this case, action under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated for showing lesser consideration in the deed. The proceedings were subsequently dropped. The dropping of the proceedings under the Income Tax Act was taken to be an indication of the authenticity of the valuation shown in the document. However, in the instant case, no proceedings under Section XX-A of the Income Tax Act were initiated, and a mere issuance of a certificate under Section 230(a) of the Income Tax Act does not point to a positive application of mind by the income-tax authorities. The certificate may have been issued in a routine fashion, and if an omission has been made or a mistake has been committed by the Income Tax authorities, the same may not necessarily be transported to the proceedings under the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act is independent in itself and is in no way dependent on the acts and conclusions of the authorities under the Income Tax Act. It may be pointed out here that this fact has been admitted even by the Hon'ble High Court in the above cited judgment reported at page 138 of AIR 1982 Madras. 14. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the stamp duty is chargeable on the instrument and not on the transactions. Through this, he meant to say that whatever is written in the instrument should only be charged with stamp duty, and if there are additional constructions or the machinery on this land and the same are not being sold, they cannot be made chargeable. However, a perusal of the document shows that the fixtures and the constructions on the land have been sought to be cleverly covered in the instrument. While the revisionist has said that only an Ahata boundary, wall and Gate were the constructed part of the actual phrase used in the deed is different. However, a perusal of the document shows that the fixtures and the constructions on the land have been sought to be cleverly covered in the instrument. While the revisionist has said that only an Ahata boundary, wall and Gate were the constructed part of the actual phrase used in the deed is different. The sold property has been described in the deed as : " vkjkth uEcjku [kljk o jdc, tS; e; nhokjkr vgkrk o njoktk gky vgkrk e; tqeyk rkehjkr equgfnek f'kdlrk vUnj vgkrk o rekeh veyk e; tqeyk gdwd feyfd;rh o nkf[kyh o [kkjth o lgu vUn:uh o cS:uh oxSjkA" It shows that there were some other structures also on the land in question and the boundary wall and the gate are only part description of the same. The phrase " e; reke veyk o vlklk" makes it further very clear. By this, clear and deceitful description of the property in question, the vendee revisionist has only made his case weaker. 15. In view of the arguments made above, I find no grounds to interfere in the judgment of the learned lower court which is maintained. However, penalty cannot be lived in a proceeding for determination of market value under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Kaka Singh v. State (1987 KD 286), and hence, the penalty is waived. The revision is disposed of accordingly.