2007 (3) TMI 192 - HC - Income Tax

Purchase of immovable property by central govt. on account of undervaluation is based on facts so petition of assessee rejected time limit for filing agreement of transfer of property starts from date of signing of agreement not the time of transfer mentioned in agreement Sec 269UC(1)

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of preemptive purchase order under Section 269-UD(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Contention regarding the property being a tenanted property and its commercial value.
3. Consideration of comparable sale instances in determining property value.
4. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for judicial review.
5. Impleading of wife and daughter seeking payment due to them.
6. Compliance with Section 269-UC(1) regarding the time limit for agreement for transfer.
7. Locus standi of transferee in maintaining writ appeal without appeal from the vendor.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a writ appeal challenging a preemptive purchase order under Section 269-UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. The transferees had entered into an agreement to purchase a property, but the appropriate authority ordered preemptive purchase at a lower consideration. The court upheld the authority's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review and lack of procedural violations.

2. The writ petitioners contested the order, arguing that the property was tenanted and lacked commercial value. They also objected to the consideration based on comparable sale instances under Section 269-UD(1A). However, the court found no procedural violations or under-valuation, supporting the authority's decision.

3. The consideration of comparable sale instances was a key point of contention. The court affirmed the authority's reasoning, stating the subject property and comparables were similar. The court rejected claims of incomparability and upheld the authority's valuation based on the prevailing real estate market conditions.

4. Regarding jurisdiction under Article 226, the court clarified that judicial review is not an appeal mechanism. Citing relevant precedents, the court emphasized limited review scope and upheld the authority's decision without procedural violations.

5. The wife and daughter of the transferor sought payment due to them, leading to impleading in the proceedings. The court directed the appropriate authority to pay the due amount with interest, resolving the claim within the writ proceedings.

6. The court addressed the contention regarding compliance with Section 269-UC(1) concerning the time limit for the agreement for transfer. Despite a shorter time limit in the agreement, the court held that the authority had jurisdiction as long as Form 37-I was filed promptly, emphasizing the importance of timely submission.

7. The issue of locus standi of the transferee in maintaining the writ appeal without the vendor's appeal was raised. The court dismissed this argument, stating that any grievance should come from the vendor. The court upheld the single judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the authority's order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ appeal, affirmed the single judge's order, and directed the release of funds to the concerned parties as per the decree.