JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals under Section 269H of the Income Tax Act 1962 (for short, "the Act") are directed against the consolidated order dated March 30, 1988 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (herein after referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect to two pieces of land admeasuring 10 Bighas each. 2. The relevant facts are these-On the basis of the reports received from the Income Tax Inspector & Income Tax Officer Sri Ganga Nagar, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Acquisition Jaipur Range, who also functioned as a Competent Authority under Section 269B of the Act for Jaipur Range had reasons to believe that Shri Surja Ram & Kishna Ram sons of Shri Chatroo Ram Nai, Resident of Chak 5-E Choti Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar had sold two pieces of land, admeasuring 10 Bighas each to the Respondent Samiti for apparent considerations which were less than the fair market value of the said two immovable properties by more than 15% in each case. The two pieces of land had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 3.30 lakhs each. The Competent Authority was further of the belief that the considerations for the transfers had not been truly stated in the instruments of transfers with the object of either facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor's to pay tax under the Act in respect to any income arising from the transfer or facilitating the conconlment of any income or any moneys or other assets, which had not been or which ought to have been disclosed by the transferee for the purpose of the Act or the Wealth Tax Act 1957. He therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 269C for the acquisition of the two immovable properties by publishing a notice to that effect in the official Gazette as required by Section 269D of the Act. He therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 269C for the acquisition of the two immovable properties by publishing a notice to that effect in the official Gazette as required by Section 269D of the Act. Though the transferor's filed their objections under Section 269E contending therein that the two pieces of land were transferred at fair market value and that the Consideration received for such transfers had been truly stated in the instruments of transfer yet since neither they nor the transferee appeared before him at the hearing of the case in response to notices issued under Section 269F, the learned Competent Authority concluded that these was no escape from accepting the report of the Income Tax Inspector/Officer. In his report the Income Tax Inspector had reported that the land in dispute situated in front of the land of Chak 6E choti which land was inhabitated by residential colonies built by the Rajasthan Housing Board. He had further reported that in chak 6E choti, Which land was inhabitated by residential colonies built by the Rajasthan Housing Board. He had further reported that in Chak 6E Choti, Sri Ganga Nagar, Shri Moti Ram & Narendra Kumar had agreed on 12.5.1982 to sell and purchase land @ $. 50,000/- per Bighas. The learned Competent Authority, therefore, held that the fair market value of the properties in dispute was Rs. 50,000/- per Bigha. He accordingly passed the following order:- " 10- mijksDr iSjk 1 ls 8 es fd;s x;s foospu ls eS lUrq"V gwa fd & 1- fopkj/khu lEifRr dk mfpr cktkj ewY;] vUrj.k frfFk dks] ,d yk[k :Ik;s ls vf/kd FkkA 2- fopkjk/khu lEifRr dk] vUrj.k frfFk dks] mfpr cktkj ewY;] mlds izdV izfrQy ls 25 izfr'kr ls vf/kd FkkA 3- fopkj/khu lEifRr ds vUrj.k fy[kr es] okLrfod izfrQy dk lR;kiu /kkjk 269 lh ( 1 ) ds Dykt ' , ' ,oa ' ch ' es of.kZr mn~ns';ksa dh iwfrZ ds fy, ugha fd;k x;k gSA " 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority dated July 27, 1987 the Respondent preferred I.T. Acq. Appeal Nos. 10+11 of 1987 before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was urged on behalf of the Respondent that on the basis of mere report of the Income Tax Inspector no presumption of under statement of consideration can be raised. Aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority dated July 27, 1987 the Respondent preferred I.T. Acq. Appeal Nos. 10+11 of 1987 before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was urged on behalf of the Respondent that on the basis of mere report of the Income Tax Inspector no presumption of under statement of consideration can be raised. Accepting this contention on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Unique Association Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India 145 I.T.R. 114 (Bom.) : 1984 TLR 791 the Appellate Tribunal held that presumption of understatment of the price was not available at the initial stage of the acquisition proceedings and that there was no other material on the records of the two cases which might indicate that the considerations as passed between the parties were much more than those stated in the instruments of transfer. The Appellate Tribunal therefore, quashed the acquisition proceedings in both the cases. 4. Mr. G.S. Bapna, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Appellate Tribunal proceeded on altogether wrong footing in as much as it took the view that presumption under Section 269C(2)(b) was not available to the appellant at the initial stage of the proceedings. Mr. Bapna submitted that once the consideration stated on the instrument of transfer is found less than the fair market value of the immovable property a presumption would arise that the transfer ,was made with the object mentioned in clause (a) or (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C. In this behalf Mr. Bapna relied upon Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Satlaj Chit Fund & Financers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 161 ITR 174 . 5. Mr. R.L. Kalia learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the presumption under Section 269(2)(a)(b) was not available at the initial stage of proceedings. Mr. Bapna relied upon Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Satlaj Chit Fund & Financers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 161 ITR 174 . 5. Mr. R.L. Kalia learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the presumption under Section 269(2)(a)(b) was not available at the initial stage of proceedings. Mr. Kalia supported his argument with the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of Unique Association Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India (Supra) Delhi High court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Mehra 157 ITR 308 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Raton Chand Sood 166 ITR 497 , Gujarat High Court in the cases of Sarabhai Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. P.N. Mittal 126 ITR 1 , Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vimla Bai Bhagwan Dass 118 ITR 134 and Indian Sycstall Industries Ltd. v. IAC 206 ITR 485 , Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amrit Sports Industries 145 ITR 231 and Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Raja Narendra 210 ITR 250 . 6. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and material on our record. We are of the opinion that the order under appeal is sustainable. 7. 6. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and material on our record. We are of the opinion that the order under appeal is sustainable. 7. Section 269C, which is under study, reads as under-"269C.(1) Where the competent authority has reason to believe that any immovable property of a fair market value exceeding (one hundred) thousand rupees has been transferred by a person (thereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferor) in another person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferee) for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truely stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of-- (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer; or (b) Facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 (11 of 1992), or this Act or the Wealth-tax Act 1957 (27 of 1957), the competent authority may subject to the provisions of this Chapter, initiate proceedings for the acquisition of such property under this Chapter; Provided that before initiating such proceedings, the competent authority shall record the reasons for doing so: Provided further that no such proceedings shall be initiated unless the competent authority has reason to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration therefore by more than fifteen percent of such apparent consideration. (2) In any proceedings under this Chapter in respect of any immovable property-- (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefore by more than twenty five percent of such apparent it shall be conclusive proof that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truely stated in the instrument of transfer; (b) where the property has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than its fair market value, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truely stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as is referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (i). 8. It may be noted that Section 269C deals with the foundational facts the existence of which is necessary for initiation of acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Act. The requisite conditions for initiation of such proceeding are (i) transfer of an immovable property exceeding Rs 1 Lac in value by one person to the other (ii) mention of some consideration for such transfer in the instrument of transfer (iii) material to show that the fair market value of such property exceeds the consideration stated in the instrument of transfer by 15% or more (iv) formation of reasonable belief by the competent Authority that the under statement of the consideration in the instrument of transfer was made with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the tax liability of the transferor or concealment income of the transfer with the above object and (v) recording of his reasons by the competent Authority for forming the belief to initiate the proceedings. In so far as the existence of conditions Nos (i), (ii), (iii) is concerned, that may be evidenced by the existence of the relevant facts. But condition at (iv) relates to the facts which may be in the special knowledge of the transferor and or the transferee. In order to form a reasonable belief regarding the object of the transferor and, or the transferee, as mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C, the competent Authority may draw inferences from the existence of the physical facts mentioned at (i), (ii), (iii) above. In order to form a reasonable belief regarding the object of the transferor and, or the transferee, as mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C, the competent Authority may draw inferences from the existence of the physical facts mentioned at (i), (ii), (iii) above. Such inferences may give rise to the presumption that the value of the immovable property was understated in the instrument of transfer for the object mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 269C. The availability of such presumption may help the Competent Authority for forming his belief under Section 269C(1) of the Act which is the founding stone of the very initiation of the acquisition proceedings. But before making such presumption as a basis of his belief the competent Authority is required to look at and feel satisfied of the existence of the physical facts mentioned in condition Nos. (i) (ii) (iii) above, because the basis for the very presumption at (iv) is the existence of those facts. It would thus follow that the presumption mentioned in Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 269C is available to the Competent Authority in the process of forming his belief with regard to be object of the transferor or the transferee in effecting the transfer of the immovable property for an understated consideration. 9. It is note worthy that Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 269C creates an irrefutable presumption regarding the nature and character of the statement of the consideration in the instrument of transfer. It does not talk of the object of the transferor or transferee in effecting the transfer. The under statement of the consideration may be for the object of evading stamp duty and not necessarily with the object of evading payment of tax or concealment of income. It is clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C that talks of the presumption regarding the object of the concerned parties. The presumption created in clause (b) however, is a rebuttable presumption. A presumption may be rebutted by a party where such presumption is relied upon as an evidence against him. It is clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C that talks of the presumption regarding the object of the concerned parties. The presumption created in clause (b) however, is a rebuttable presumption. A presumption may be rebutted by a party where such presumption is relied upon as an evidence against him. It, therefore, follows that the presumption under clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C must be in existence at the time of initiation of acquisition proceedings if such presumption is also relied upon by the competent authority as an evidence against the parties to the transfer of immovable property. What, in fact the presumption under clause (b) of Section 269C(2) regarding the existence of a particular object on the part of the transferor and/or the transferee in understating the consideration does is shifting the burden of proof from the competent Authority to the parties to the transfer. For, the fundamental principle underlying Section 101 of the Evidence Act is that whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. But when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The availability of a presumption regarding the existence of a fact to a party whose initial burden it is to prove that existence of that fact, shifts the burden of proof from him to the other rebuttable presumption being essentially a matter of proof would be available to the competent Authority not only at the initial stage of the acquisition proceedings for forming belief but also at the stage of such proceedings themselves if such presumption is relied upon by him against the parties to the transfer of immovable property. After initiation of the proceedings the competent Authority has to see if the presumption raised and relied upon by him for formation of his belief for initiating the acquisition proceedings has been rebutted by the opposite party or not. 10. To conclude we hold that the presumption under Section 269(2)(b) is available to the Competent Authority during the proceedings prior to issue of notice initiating acquisition proceedings. 10. To conclude we hold that the presumption under Section 269(2)(b) is available to the Competent Authority during the proceedings prior to issue of notice initiating acquisition proceedings. In other words the presumption under Section 269C(2)(b) regarding the objects mentioned in Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 269C(ii) is available to the Competent Authority at the initial stage of the proceedings. A Similar view on the point has been expressed by their Lordships of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satlej Chitfund and Financiers (P) Ltd., and we are in respectful agreement with their view. With due respect we differ from the contrary views expressed in the Bombay, Delhi and Gujarat cases, referred to above. The Rajasthan case Commissioner of Income Tax v. Raja Narendra 210 ITR 250 was a case under Section 52 of the Act and that is not the issue before us in the instant case. It is therefore, not relevant for our purpose. 11. Now coming to the merits of the appeals before us we find that there was no sufficient evidence before the learned Competent Authority to hold that the consideration for the immovable property had been under stated in the relevant instruments of transfers. The only evidence available with the learned Competent Authority was the report of the Income Tax Inspector as endorsed by the Income Tax Officer. The report of the Income Tax Inspector was based on the mention of a consideration for immovable property which was situated in another Chak (village) and the transfer of which was effected almost one year subsequent to the transfers in question. The consolidated order of the Competent Authority gives no indication that the two properties were continuos or identically situated. The distance in their locations, the interval between their transfers the amenities available to them and similar other factors could have made them un-comparable. The competent Authority did not obtain the valuation report from any valuer and also adopted no other recognised method to value the properties in question. Though we have not approved the Appellate Tribunal's view on the legal aspect of the case yet the above factors dissuade as from taking a view different from that of the Appellate Tribunal on the merits of the two cases. On the merits of the two cases, therefore we feel inclined to sustain the consolidated order of the learned Appellate Tribunal. 12. On the merits of the two cases, therefore we feel inclined to sustain the consolidated order of the learned Appellate Tribunal. 12. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with costs on parties.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******