1995 (12) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Purchase Price

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 269UD for purchase of property on grounds of undervaluation and non-payment of purchase price.

Analysis:
The court analyzed two main contentions raised in the petition challenging the order under section 269UD for property purchase. Firstly, it was argued that the appropriate authority did not establish undervaluation of the property or evasion of tax, which are prerequisites for exercising power under section 269UD. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need for the authority to make a clear determination and provide reasons for the purchase order. Since the current order lacked such satisfaction, it was deemed erroneous and unsustainable.

Secondly, the petition contended that even if the purchase order was valid, it was abrogated under section 269UH due to non-payment of the purchase price within the stipulated time frame. The court highlighted the mandatory nature of payment or deposit requirements under section 269UG and the consequences of non-compliance outlined in section 269UH. As no valid grounds existed for depositing the amount with the appropriate authority, the court concluded that the order stood abrogated, and the property reverted to the original owner.

The court emphasized the distinction between tendering the purchase price to the entitled person and depositing it with the appropriate authority. It noted that the deposit option was not a substitute for tendering and must only occur in specific contingencies outlined in the law. In this case, as no such contingencies existed, the deposit did not fulfill the obligation of tendering to the entitled person, leading to the abrogation of the purchase order.

The court also discussed the authority's reasoning for directing the deposit of the purchase price to secure possession of the property from a tenant allegedly placed there to manipulate the property's value. However, the court clarified that the recovery of possession was not a valid ground for withholding payment under the statute. The obligation to tender the amount to the entitled person remained unaffected by possession issues, and failure to do so resulted in the abrogation of the purchase order.

In conclusion, the court upheld the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the property to revert to the original owner. It mandated the issuance of a no objection certificate for the sale deed execution within a specified timeline following the court's order presentation.