( 1 ) IN this case which is an appeal on a point of law under the provisions of sec. 269-11 of the Income-tax Act 1961 one point on which arguments have been advanced is regarding the failure on the part of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to give an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer nominated by the Competent Authority under sec. 269-L (3 ). Under the scheme of Chapter XX-A which covers secs. 269-A to 269-S provision has been made for acquisition under sec. 269 by the order of the Competent Authority when in the case of sale of any immovable property the Competent Authority comes to the conclusion that the immovable property to which the proceedings relate is of a fair market value exceeding twentyfive thousand rupees and that the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration thereof by more than fifteen per cent of apparent consideration and that it is for one of the objects mentioned in sec. 269-C (1) clauses (a) and (b ). In the instant case the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that the requirements of sec. 269-F were satisfied and he therefore passed after obtaining approval of the Commissioner an order for acquisition of the immovable property under the provisions of Chapter XX-A. Against this decision of the Competent Authority two appeals were filed to the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of sec. 269-G one by the transferor and the other by the transferee. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgement by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under sec. 269-L sub-sec. (3) it is provided that if in an appeals under sec. 269s against the order for acquisition of any immovable property the fair market value of such property is in dispute the Appellate Tribunal shall on a request being made in that behalf by the competent authority give an opportunity of being heard to any Valuation Officer nominated for the purpose by the Competent authority. In the instant case the major point in dispute in the two appeals filed by the transferor and transferee was about the fair market value arrived at by the Competent Authority in his order. It appears from the record of the Tribunal which we have examined that on 9th October 1979 while the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was pending the Competent Authority addressed a request to the Tribunal in the form of a letter addressed to the Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad referring to the numbers of the two appeals and also stating in the second paragraph of the letter:"in this connection I have to invite your kind attention to provisions contained in sec. 269l (3) of the Income-tax Act 1951 and to request that as the fair market value of the property is in dispute the Appellate Tribunal may kindly grant an opportunity of being heard to Shri U. S. Shah Valuation Officer Unit-I Income-tax Department Ahmedabad who is hereby nominated for the purpose". ONCE the Valuation Officer was thus nominated by the Competent Authority it is obvious that under the provisions of sec. 269-L (3) it was incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to give an opportunity of being heard to that Valuation Officer. From the record of the case it is clear that no such opportunity of being heard was given to this Valuation Officer Shri U. S. Shah who was nominated by the Competent Authority in the request made by the letter of 9th October 1974. One of the grounds in appeal which has been preferred to this High Court under sec. 269-H which can be on any question of law setting out the grievance of the Commissioner of Income-tax is that the Tribunal had not given an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer nominated by the Competent Authority on 9th October 1974.

( 2 ) IN our opinion this grievance on the part of the Commissioner is justified and there is nothing on the record of the Tribunal which we have examined for ourselves to show that the Appellate Tribunal had given such an opportunity of being heard to the