1997 (4) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of purchase by the Central Government under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-application of mind by the appropriate authority.
3. Comparison of commercial and residential properties.
4. Sufficient opportunity for representation.
5. Equity and locus standi of the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Purchase:
The petitioner challenged the order of purchase dated January 17, 1995, where the appropriate authority concluded that the fair market value of the flat was at least Rs. 30,00,000, whereas the consideration payable was fixed at Rs. 19,50,000. The petitioner contended that the order suffered from non-application of mind and relied on patently dissimilar cases.

2. Non-application of Mind by the Appropriate Authority:
The court found that the appropriate authority did not properly consider the material and representations submitted by the petitioner. The authority relied on sale instances of commercial properties and posh residential complexes, which were not comparable to the petitioner's property. The authority failed to consider the petitioner's evidence, such as the condition of the property, the report of the Government Valuer, and the rates of residential properties in the locality as shown in Accommodation Times and other sources.

3. Comparison of Commercial and Residential Properties:
The appropriate authority compared the petitioner's residential property with commercial properties and posh residential complexes, which was deemed inappropriate. The court noted that the authority should have considered genuine sale instances and the fair market value approximately on the same principles as those adopted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. Sufficient Opportunity for Representation:
The petitioner argued that sufficient opportunity was not given to make an effective representation. The court observed that the show-cause notice was issued on January 5, 1995, and the petitioner was given until January 13, 1995, to respond. The petitioner requested additional time, which was denied. The court held that the appropriate authority did not act on the material before it and did not give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

5. Equity and Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The respondents contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the purchase order as the transaction was completed, and the property was auctioned. The court rejected this argument, stating that the right of a transferee to challenge the purchase order cannot be denied on the ground that the transaction was completed. The court emphasized that the petitioner took all necessary steps to contest the proceedings and moved the court at the earliest available opportunity.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the order of the appropriate authority dated January 17, 1995, on the grounds that the authority ignored material evidence and brushed aside the evidence on unsustainable grounds. The court made the rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition, with no order as to costs.