9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, Form No. 37-I was filed on April 9,1991, by the parties before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority on considering the application and finding that the value of the property was below the market value by 15 per cent. proceeded to pass an order of pre-emptive purchase which is now challenged by the petitioner. - I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, has contended that all the contentions now raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are concluded by the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court and he has also cited certain other judgments passed by this court and the Supreme Court on similar aspects. In view of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel, the only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the writ petition is to be allowed and the matter is to be remanded to the competent authority to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner before passing a fresh order. It is not disputed by Sri Sarangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530, a Constitution Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 per cent. or more in the agreement of sale as evidenced by the apparent consideration being lower than the fair market value by 15 per cent. or more. That although a presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised by the appropriate authority concerned in the case where the aforesaid circumstances are established, such a presumption is rebuttable and this would necessarily imply that the concerned parties must have an opportunity to show cause as to why such a presumption should not be drawn. On the facts of that case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed that the order for compulsory purchase under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act which was served on the petitioner has been made without any show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order having become final, now to allow the order made by the appropriate authority to be set aside and to permit the parties to work out in appropriate proceedings for restitution of the property would lead to a serious anomalous position. The Supreme Court observed that when the transferor without demur allowed the property to be sold pursuant to the orders of this court and that sale having taken place and this court having affirmed the same and the proceedings by way of special leave petition filed under article 136 of the Constitution coming to an end as having become infructuous, the High Court could not have brushed aside that sale in the manner it has been done. That the impact of such decision ought to have been taken note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the Department to proceed to auction the property in question subject to the result of the writ Petition and in the event of such auction being held, it shall be prominently notified the pendency of these proceedings. Thereafter the property was auctioned and the fifth respondent has purchased the property. Sri Sarangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the interim order submitted that this is not a case like the one considered by the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 but in this case according to learned counsel, this court itself has permitted the auction of the property subject to the result of this writ petition and hence the direction of the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam's case [1993] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
