9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding transfer of immovable property. 2. Allegation of denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. Comparison of properties for valuation purposes. 4. Applicability of settled legal principles on valuation and market value in the case. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the dismissal of three writ petitions challenging the show cause notice issued under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding the transfer of immovable property. The petitioners sought to quash the notice based on valuation discrepancies. The court found that the Appropriate Authority did not err in its assessment and dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the importance of proper document submission to prevent improper filing post-order. 2. The contention of denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing was raised by the petitioners, which was rejected by the court. It was held that the petitioners were provided with a full opportunity of hearing, and the single judge's reasoning on this issue was found to be elaborate and satisfactory. 3. The comparison of properties for valuation purposes, specifically property No. D-37, was challenged by the petitioners. The court held that factual questions like size, frontage, and commercial potential could not be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Appropriate Authority's detailed reasons for valuation were deemed correct, and the court found no justification to reduce the property value, upholding the order's legality. 4. The judgment also discussed the application of settled legal principles on valuation and market value. Citing relevant case law, the court emphasized that valuation and market value are factual questions, and the single judge's agreement with the Appropriate Authority's findings on market value should not be disturbed in a special appeal. The court dismissed all three special appeals, finding no new points raised that differed from the single judge's decision. Overall, the judgment upholds the validity of the show cause notice, denies the allegation of denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, emphasizes the limitations on examining factual questions under Article 226, and underscores the importance of adhering to established principles on valuation and market value in such cases.
|
