1994 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Fixing Fair Market Value, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Writ Petition

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the show-cause notice.
2. Determination of fair market value.
3. Abrogation of the purchase order due to delayed tender of consideration.
4. Discounting of the consideration amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Show-Cause Notice:

The transferees challenged the show-cause notice dated December 30, 1993, alleging it contained several defects and erroneous assumptions. They argued that the notice did not mention the fair value of the property as Rs. 24 crores, as later recorded in the impugned order. The transferees pointed out that the notice incorrectly stated the total area of the property as 2,093 sq. yards, overlooking that 269.45 sq. yards had been acquired for road widening. They also claimed inaccuracies in the Department's calculation of the discounted value of the consideration.

The court held that although errors existed in the show-cause notice, these were rectified in the final order, and no prejudice was caused to the transferees in presenting their case. The court emphasized that the appropriate authority issues show-cause notices based on available material within a short span and minor errors do not invalidate the final order. The first contention was therefore rejected.

2. Determination of Fair Market Value:

The transferees argued that the appropriate authority's determination of the fair market value at Rs. 24 crores was baseless and relied on irrelevant factors. They contended that the authority improperly compared the property with ready ownership flats, which are not comparable instances for determining the value of open land. They also claimed that the authority arbitrarily dismissed a comparable sale instance (instance No. 1) that showed a rate of Rs. 98,369 per sq. yard.

The court examined the principles for determining fair market value, noting that the authority must consider genuine instances of comparable sales, adjusting for factors like location and time. The court found that the authority had considered the relevant factors, including the prime location of the property and its development potential. The authority's conclusion that the fair market value was Rs. 24 crores was upheld, as the court found no reliance on extraneous or irrelevant material.

3. Abrogation of the Purchase Order Due to Delayed Tender of Consideration:

The transferees contended that the purchase order was abrogated because the Central Government failed to tender the purchase amount within the stipulated period. They argued that the cheque was received on March 1, 1994, one day after the deadline, and contained an error in the payee's name. They also claimed that the tendered amount was discounted and not the full consideration.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that the transferors had given up the contention regarding the delayed payment. The court held that the tendering of the amount by speed post on February 28, 1994, was valid. The clerical error in the cheque's payee name was deemed a minor issue that did not invalidate the tender. The withholding of Rs. 50,000,000 due to the transferors' failure to hand over vacant possession of the servants' quarters was justified under the agreement's terms. The court concluded that the purchase order did not stand abrogated.

4. Discounting of the Consideration Amount:

The transferors challenged the discounted value of the consideration determined by the appropriate authority. They argued that the discounting should be applied only from the date of actual payment, not from the date of the agreement. The appropriate authority had discounted Rs. 7,62,50,000 for 120 days and Rs. 9,62,50,000 for 180 days, starting from the date of the agreement.

The court agreed with the transferors, holding that the discounted value should be determined from the date of tender of the payment to the date of payment prescribed under the agreement. The court found that the appropriate authority had incorrectly applied the discounting from the date of the agreement. The court directed the appropriate authority to recompute the discounted value accordingly.

Conclusion:

- Writ Petition No. 797 of 1994 (Transferors): Partly succeeded. The court upheld the impugned order but directed the appropriate authority to recompute the discounted value and tender the corrected amount within one month.
- Writ Petition No. 862 of 1994 (Transferees): Failed. The court discharged the rule with costs and allowed the transferees to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 10 crores with interest. The court permitted the authorities to proceed with the preliminary work for auction but not to hold the auction for six weeks.

← Previous Next →