2001 (1) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act to the transaction.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Appropriate Authority u/s 269UD(1).
3. Determination of market value by the Appropriate Authority.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act:

The petitioners contended that the agreement for transfer was entered into on July 29, 1987, before Chapter XX-C was enforced in Bangalore on October 1, 1987. They argued that possession was handed over on the date of the agreement, making the transaction a completed transfer before the applicability of Chapter XX-C. The court held that the definition of "transfer" in section 269UA(f) should be interpreted in the context of the general law of transfer, as the provisions of Chapter XX-C were not in force at the time of the agreement. The court found that mere delivery of possession under an agreement did not amount to a completed transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a registered instrument for transfers of immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter XX-C applied to the transaction, and the order passed by the authorities was within jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the order passed by the Appropriate Authority u/s 269UD(1):

The petitioners argued that the order dated February 25, 1993, for compulsory purchase was illegal and void as the transaction was completed before Chapter XX-C came into force. The court rejected this contention, stating that the transaction was not completed under the general law of transfer, and the agreement in the prescribed form was submitted on October 30, 1987. Thus, the Appropriate Authority had jurisdiction to consider the matter and pass the order u/s 269UD(1).

3. Determination of market value by the Appropriate Authority:

The petitioners contended that the market value determined by the Appropriate Authority was erroneous and based on irrelevant material. The court found that the authority had considered the relevant material and illustrations provided by the petitioners and arrived at a finding based on the appreciation of evidence. The court held that the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is not that of a court of fact or the first appellate court and cannot interfere with the finding of fact unless it is based on no evidence or is perverse. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions, upholding the order of the Appropriate Authority.

Conclusion:

Both writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit, and the court upheld the order of the Appropriate Authority for compulsory purchase of the property under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act.