9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the appropriate authority on December 22, 1994. The appropriate authority issued showcause notice under section 269UD(1A) of the Act to the vendor as well as three buyers on March 13, 1995, fixing the date of their appearance on March 21, 1995. According to the petitioners, the notices were received by them on March 16, 1995. Except that different agreements have been executed by different vendors in favour of the same purchasers for different parcels of land at the same rate of consideration, the factual matrix of the three petitions is the same. The three aforesaid buyers have filed these three separate petitions alleging that under the common agreement, the buyers have agreed to purchase one-third of the entire land independently and in fact the agreement constitutes three separate transactions between three different vendors and three purchasers. The three separate petitions are in respect of the three different sale agreements referred to therein. In response to the notice dated March 13, 1995, a reply was filed. Apart from many other points like insufficient period of notice, etc., it was pointed out by the petitioners in their separate replies that the PUC is situated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions in village Wadachi Wadi relied on by the petitioners have not taken place on January 12, 1995, or January 21, 1994. It is also not the finding or case of the appropriate authority that the transactions, relied on by the petitioners are not genuine. It has simply refused to consider those transactions as having any relevant bearing by considering the fair market value for the purpose of enquiring in connection with the property in question merely on the ground that the declared sale consideration of the sale instance property relied on by the petitioners being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, no Form No. 37-I in respect thereof was required to be filed and the appropriate authority cannot exercise the power in respect of those properties. The fact whether those sale instances could have been the subject of proceedings under Chapter XX-C or not, has no bearing on the question whether the sale instance provides comparable materials for arriving at any conclusion about the fair market price of the property in question to find out whether the consideration stated in the agreement is below fifteen per cent. of its market value which provides the basis to proceed under section 269UD. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fall on a sale instance of property situated about 10 kms. away from the PUC in a different village by assuming that the price of the property in question will be the same as that of the sale instance property situated in the village Undree which is undisputedly a superior location. This court is not sitting as a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence and the conclusions arrived at by the appropriate authorities in that regard, but if it is apparent from the record that the conclusions arrived at by the appropriate authority are by ignoring the relevant material on wholly irrelevant grounds, the case will be one of error apparent on the face of the record to be corrected by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The present is clearly such a case which is required to be corrected by issuing a writ of certiorari. Apart from the aforesaid, we also find that the orders in question do not conform to the requirement of the statute. Sub-section (1B) of section 269UD enjoins a duty on the appropriate authority making an order for purchase of any immovable property, to specify the grounds on which it is made. It involves something more than the mere rejection of objections made. It r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 269UD to be in writing must be germane to the object for which the chapter was introduced, namely, to counter attempts to evade tax.... Although a presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised by the appropriate authority concerned in a 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. Moreover, in a given transaction of an agreement to sell, there might be several bona fide considerations which might induce a seller to sell his immovable property at less than what might be considered to be its fair market value. " This court in Special Civil Application No. 869 of 1995 decided on March 30, 1995 (Anagram Finance Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1996] 217 ITR 22), observed (page 28) : "A combined reading of section 269UD(1A) and (1B) of the Act leaves no room for doubt that it is a question of objective decision-making process by taking into consideration all the relevant materials which have come before the hearing authority and considering the rival aspects of the matter. Moreover, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
