2007 (2) TMI 134 - HC - Income Tax

Purchase of immovable property by CG Assessee filed writ petition against the order of the respondent of surrender of possession After not finding any evidence petition filed by the assessee dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order to quash the property transfer under Section 269-UD(1).
2. Claim of occupancy by the petitioner and the legality of the encumbrance.
3. Order to surrender possession based on preemptive purchase.
4. Sustainability of the order to vacate the premises.
5. Dispute regarding the petitioner's occupancy status and the evidence provided.
6. Consideration of the claim for maintenance expenses and unpaid salary.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the order of the appropriate authority from the Income Tax Department under Section 269-UD(1) to quash a property transfer. The court noted that the appropriate authority found the encumbrance to be with the intent to defeat tax provisions and declared it void under Section 269-UE(1). The petitioner claimed lawful possession since 1990 but failed to provide sufficient evidence, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner, a watchman, alleged to have been asked by the owner to reside in the property as a tenant. However, the court observed that the petitioner did not substantiate his claim of occupancy with evidence. Despite filing a suit for maintenance expenses and unpaid salary, the court upheld the order to vacate the premises, as the petitioner failed to prove the legality of his occupancy.

3. Another issue involved a separate writ petition challenging an order to surrender possession based on preemptive purchase. The contentions in both writ petitions were found to be identical. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim of lawful possession, leading to the dismissal of both writ petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued against the sustainability of the order to vacate the premises. However, the court, after reviewing the evidence and contentions, found no merit in the writ petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to property transfer, encumbrance, lawful possession, and preemptive purchase. The court emphasized the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of occupancy and maintenance expenses in such cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.