2001 (3) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government - it was conceded before the High Court on behalf of the Revenue that all the relevant reports pertaining to the valuation of the said immovable property had not been disclosed to the respondents. We think in these circumstances that the matter should go back to the appropriate authority for hearing the matter afresh. It is not therefore necessary to deal with the finding of the High Court about perversity

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of the apparent consideration and market value.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the High Court's interpretation of co-ownership and individual share transfer.
5. Precedents from other High Courts regarding similar issues.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the provisions of Chapter XX-C, which deals with the pre-emptive purchase of immovable property by the Central Government, were applicable in the case of co-owners transferring their property. The High Court had concluded that since each co-owner's share was less than Rs. 25 lakhs, Chapter XX-C was not attracted. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the real subject of transfer was the entire immovable property valued at Rs. 47 lakhs, thus bringing it within the ambit of Chapter XX-C.

2. Determination of the apparent consideration and market value:
The appropriate authority had issued a notice for pre-emptive purchase, concluding that the apparent consideration was significantly lower than the market value. The Supreme Court emphasized that the apparent consideration must be assessed realistically, not artificially. The total consideration for the property was Rs. 47 lakhs, which was above the prescribed limit, justifying the issuance of the notice for pre-emptive purchase.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The High Court had quashed the pre-emptive purchase order partly because the Revenue had not disclosed all valuation reports to the respondents, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court agreed on this procedural lapse and remanded the matter to the appropriate authority for a fresh hearing, ensuring all relevant materials would be disclosed to the respondents.

4. Validity of the High Court's interpretation of co-ownership and individual share transfer:
The High Court had relied on precedents from the Madras High Court, interpreting that co-owners transferring their individual shares did not attract Chapter XX-C if each share was below the prescribed limit. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that the transfer of the entire property should be considered, not individual shares. The Court approved the Bombay High Court's contrary view, which treated the transfer as a composite agreement for the entire property.

5. Precedents from other High Courts regarding similar issues:
The Supreme Court reviewed various judgments from the Madras, Karnataka, Delhi, and Calcutta High Courts that supported the High Court's view. However, it found these judgments erroneous and based on a wrong approach. The Court approved the Bombay High Court's judgment, which correctly interpreted the applicability of Chapter XX-C to composite property transfers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter to the appropriate authority for a fresh decision. The Revenue was directed to disclose all relevant valuation reports to the respondents, and the appropriate authority was instructed to re-evaluate the case without considering the High Court's observations. No costs were ordered.

← Previous Next →