9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory purchase order under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. 3. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the compulsory purchase order. 4. Adequacy of the comparable property used for valuation. 5. Merits of the compulsory purchase order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Compulsory Purchase Order: The petitioner challenged the order dated February 23, 1995, by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the compulsory acquisition of the property. The court issued a rule on the petition and noted that replies and further affidavits had already been filed by the parties. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Statutory Provisions: The petitioner argued that the compulsory purchase order was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles laid down in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC). According to section 269UD(1A) of the Income-tax Act, the appropriate authority must give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the transferor, transferee, and other interested persons before making an order. The respondents contended that the notice was served on the transferor, who shared the same office building as the transferee, implying that the transferee must have received the notice. However, no acknowledgment of service on the transferee was provided. The court found that the petitioner was not given adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The affidavit of Mr. D.G. Deo, an officer of the transferor, clarified that he did not represent the transferee, contradicting the respondents' claim. 3. Locus Standi of the Petitioner: The respondents argued that only the transferor had the locus standi to challenge the compulsory purchase order, not the transferee. However, the court referred to various judgments, including Hari Krishna Kanoi v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 207 ITR 743 (Cal) and Appropriate Authority v. Mass Traders P. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 741 (Karn), which recognized the transferee's right to challenge such orders. The court held that the transferee had the right to be heard and, consequently, the right to challenge the order under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Adequacy of the Comparable Property: The petitioner contended that the property used for comparison was not comparable in various respects, including location and transaction type. The comparable property was situated in a different area and was a sale transaction, whereas the petitioner's transaction was a lease. The court found that the comparable property had not gone through the sale, and the 7/12 extract confirmed that the property remained with the original owner. This undermined the basis of the valuation used by the appropriate authority. 5. Merits of the Compulsory Purchase Order: The court noted that the appropriate authority's order lacked sufficient reasoning and did not establish that the apparent consideration was significantly undervalued to evade tax. The order did not comply with the requirement to determine the fair market value and justify the compulsory purchase based on significant undervaluation. The court referred to Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 210 ITR 16 (Bom), which emphasized the need for the appropriate authority to record reasons and consider all relevant factors before passing such orders. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned order of compulsory purchase dated February 23, 1995, was passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The comparable property used for valuation was not adequate, and the order lacked sufficient reasoning. Therefore, the court quashed and set aside the compulsory purchase order, making the rule absolute but without ordering any costs.
|
