1993 (4) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Appropriate Authority, Delay In Filing Writ, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Writ Petition

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Comparable Property Transactions
2. Denial of Natural Justice
3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition
4. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Comparable Property Transactions:
The petitioners contended that the appropriate authority improperly rejected instances of sale of properties at Dover Road and failed to consider the difference between the localities of the two instances relied upon by it and that of the flat. The court held that it is not for the court to weigh the evidence before the appropriate authority or interfere with any finding of fact unless the authority had taken into account irrelevant factors or ignored relevant factors. The court noted that the appropriate authority had considered each point raised by the petitioners, and it is not a patent fact that properties in Hindusthan Park are less valuable than those in Ballygunge Circular Road or Southern Avenue. The court concluded that the appropriate authority acted on material with a rational nexus to the conclusion reached.

2. Denial of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that there was a denial of natural justice as the notice to show cause was received only two days before the first hearing, and adequate opportunity was not given to show that the transaction was not undervalued. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam's case, which stated that a summary hearing is sufficient. In this case, the petitioners were given eight days' notice, heard on three days, and provided with all relevant documents. The court found that the hearing held was sufficient and that the petitioners did not claim that they had further material to present if given more time.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent authorities contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner, being only the purchaser, had no right or interest in the property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam's case, where it was held that parties aggrieved by a proposed order of purchase are entitled to an adequate opportunity to show cause. The court also noted that the respondents had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner-company and considered its arguments, making it too late to argue that the petitioner could not question the decision of the appropriate authority.

4. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The court observed that the petitioners delayed moving the writ petition for several weeks after the impugned order was communicated to them. The court emphasized the urgency required under Chapter XX-C of the Act, noting that possession and payment were made by the Central Government within the statutory time-frame, and the flat was advertised for sale promptly. The petitioners allowed these actions to occur and only moved the court on the day of the sale. The court found the delay of several weeks to be fatal and would have dismissed the petition on this ground alone, irrespective of the merits.

Conclusion:
For the reasons stated, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to pay the costs of the advertisement to the Central Government within a fortnight of being informed of the actual expenditure incurred. All interim orders are vacated. A stay of this judgment is granted for two weeks from the date of the judgment.

← Previous Next →