2019 (7) TMI 1454 - SC - Income Tax

Preemptive purchase order - applicability of section 269 UD (1) of the Income tax act where the market value is more than purchase value of the property - whether the High Court (Single Judge, Division Bench and Review Bench) was justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition, intra court appeal and review petition and thereby was justified in upholding the pre-emptive order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the appropriate authority? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appropriate authority laid a factual foundation in the show cause notice to prove the value of suit land, which, according to the authority, was 15% higher than the apparent consideration. It is also not in dispute that a categorical finding was recorded by the appropriate authority that the fair market value of the suit land was 15% more than the apparent consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale by the parties. As mentioned above, these findings were examined by the writ Court, intra appellate Court and lastly the review Court in their respective jurisdiction. They were upheld. These findings are based on appreciation of evidence. We do not find these findings to be either arbitrary or illegal or against any statutory provisions and nor they can be regarded as being perverse to the extent that no reasonable man could ever reach to such conclusion. We also find that these findings are in conformity with the requirements of Section 269 UD of the Act. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the pre-emptive purchase order dated 30.03.1994.
2. Determination of market value of the suit land.
3. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, intra-court appeal, and review petition.
4. Directions regarding refund and interest to the prospective buyers and vendor.

Detailed Analysis:

Legality of the Pre-emptive Purchase Order:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in upholding the pre-emptive purchase order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. The order was based on the finding that the apparent sale consideration was significantly lower than the market value of the suit land. The appropriate authority determined the market value to be ?1,79,21,532 as against the declared value of ?99,84,500. The Court found that the appropriate authority had laid a factual foundation in the show cause notice and recorded categorical findings that the fair market value was 15% higher than the apparent consideration, which were upheld by the writ court, intra-court appeal, and review court.

Determination of Market Value of the Suit Land:
The appropriate authority considered the location, size, and commercial potential of the suit land, as well as the condition of existing structures. The valuation was based on comparable sales and adjustments for factors such as time gap and developmental status. The authority rejected the appellants' objections regarding deductions for amenities and determined that the market value was substantially higher than the apparent consideration. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, noting that they were based on a detailed examination of evidence and were neither arbitrary nor illegal.

Validity of the High Court's Dismissal:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's orders, including the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition and the Division Bench's dismissal of the intra-court appeal. The High Court had examined the issues in detail and found no merit in the appellants' contentions. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's approach, reasoning, and conclusions, affirming that the findings were in conformity with Section 269UD(1) of the Act and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India.

Directions Regarding Refund and Interest:
The Division Bench of the High Court had directed that upon the department taking over possession of the suit land, the prospective buyers would be entitled to a refund of the amount paid to the vendor with interest at 6% p.a. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not consider Section 269UG(4) of the Act, which provides for the investment of the consideration amount by the appropriate authority. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions and left the matter to be decided by the appropriate authority as required under Section 269UG(4).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the prospective buyers, upholding the pre-emptive purchase order and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, intra-court appeal, and review petition. The appeal filed by the Union of India was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court's directions regarding the refund and interest, and remanding the matter to the appropriate authority for a decision in accordance with Section 269UG(4) of the Act.

← Previous Next →