9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rescission of the agreement for sale during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. 2. Inclusion of the loft area in the valuation of the property. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Rescission of the Agreement for Sale The petitioner contended that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, an agreement dated August 11, 1992, rescinded the original agreement for sale dated December 20, 1991. The petitioner argued that this rescission rendered the original agreement and the statement filed in Form No. 37-1 on December 31, 1991, invalid for consideration by the appropriate authority. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's judgment in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 did not quash the entire proceedings emanating from the statement in Form No. 37-1. Instead, it only set aside the order under section 269UD(1) due to the lack of adequate opportunity given to the assessee. The Supreme Court directed that the statement in Form No. 37-1 be treated as filed on the date of the judgment to overcome the limitation period prescribed in section 269UD(1). The court noted that the Supreme Court did not direct the parties to file fresh statements nor provided an option to file or not file the same. This was to prevent vendors from defeating acquisition proceedings by exploiting the Supreme Court's decision. The court also highlighted that under section 269UK of the Act, there are specific restrictions on altering agreements for the transfer of immovable property once a statement has been filed under section 269UC. The petitioner did not fall under any exceptions to this rule. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's first submission, stating that the rescission of the agreement during the pendency of the writ petition was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and the scheme of the Act. Issue 2: Inclusion of the Loft Area in the Valuation The petitioner argued that the loft area was not part of the property intended to be sold and that the authorities erroneously included its value in the market valuation of the property. The court examined the order of the appropriate authority, which discussed this matter in detail. The appropriate authority concluded that the loft area was indeed part of the shop premises, which was the subject of the sale agreement. The authority noted that the transfer of five shares resulted in the transferor losing the right to occupy any part of the premises, including the loft. The court found that the appropriate authority had carefully considered all relevant facts and concluded that the loft area was an integral part of shop No. 2A. The court observed that the petitioner had not raised any objections regarding the inclusion of the loft area before the initial order under section 269UD(1) on February 26, 1992. The objection was only raised after the order was passed. The court found that the appropriate authority had applied its mind properly to all relevant facts and therefore, there was no justification to interfere with its conclusion. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, finding no merit in either of the petitioner's submissions. The court directed that the possession of the shop premises shall not be taken over for six weeks, provided the petitioner does not part with possession or create any third-party rights. The date of payment of consideration to the petitioner was extended to two weeks after the expiry of this six-week period. No order as to costs was made.
|
