High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY - Appellant
Versus
LYTTON HOTEL (P) LTD. - Respondent
APO 230 Of 2001 And APOT No. 503 Of 2001 In Writ Petn. No. 1833 Of 1993
Decided On : 04/08/2003
INCOME TAX - PRE-EMPTIVE PURCHASE - VALUATION - BONA FIDE SALE - ENCUMBRANCES - CHAPTER XX-C - SECTION 269UD - 15% DIFFERENCE - MARKET VALUE - INTENTION TO EVADE TAX - PRESUMPTION - REBUTTAL - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
A notice for pre-emptive purchase under Section 269ud of Chapter XX-C, IT Act, 1961, was initiated against the assessee-respondent. The assessee challenged the notice in a writ petition. The Single Judge quashed the notice and the Revenue appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of a proceeding under Section 269ud of the 1961 Act is very restrictive and limited. It is confined to scrutinizing the perversity and illegality of the process of valuation for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the property was undervalued by more than 15% of the market value. It does not sit on appeal of the market value determined in the valuation report.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court can interfere with the valuation given in the valuation report while deciding a pre-emptive purchase notice under Section 269ud of Chapter XX-C, IT Act, 1961? 2. Whether the valuation method adopted by the appropriate authority was correct and in accordance with the law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that in a writ petition challenging a pre-emptive purchase notice under Section 269ud, the Court does not sit on appeal with regard to the valuation given in the valuation report. However, the Court can look into the perversity of the valuation made. 2. The Court held that the valuation method adopted by the appropriate authority was not correct and in accordance with the law. The valuation was made on the basis of land and building method, which is not appropriate for a property that is encumbered with unevictable tenancy. The Court held that the valuation should have been made on the basis of the rental method, taking into account the encumbrance of the tenancy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order quashing the pre-emptive purchase notice.
( 1 ) A notice for pre-emptive purchase under Section 269ud of Chapter XX-C, IT Act, 1961, as it stood then, was initiated against the assessee-respondent. The said proceeding was challenged in writ petition No. 1833 of 1993, by the assessee. By a judgment and order dt. 15th Nov. , 2000 the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to quash the said notice and the proceeding. It is against this order the Revenue has preferred this appeal.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue Mr. Agarwal has pointed out that while exercising writ jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings under Section 269ud, against which no appeal is provided for, this Court does not sit on appeal, as was decided by the apex Court in various decisions, a few of which have since been cited by him. He has then contended that the Court cannot sit on appeal with regard to the valuation given in the valuation report while deciding such a question. The learned Single Judge had, however, virtually acted as the Court of appeal. Therefore, the order should be set aside.
( 3 ) MR. Bajoria, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee-respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the object and purpose of introduction of Chapter XX-C was to prevent evasion of tax. Therefore, the provisions are to be decided in the context of the purpose and object. He has relied on the decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. and has pointed out that in the said decision the apex Court had observed that in the process, a bona fide transfer may not be suspected bringing slur upon the parties who did not ever intend to evade tax. While exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court does not exercise the power of the appellant authority. Even though no appeal is provided for in Chapter XX-C, the Court can look into the perversity of the valuation made. If the valuation is not made in terms of the valuation method applicable, in such a case, the Court can interfere. According to him, it is not the procedure for valuing the property under the WT Act that is applicable. It is the system of valuation of the property as is applicable in the acquisition proceeding that is to be adopted. But, at the same time, he has relied on various decisions of this Court and other Courts where it has been held that in respect of properties under lease or tenancies, the valuation is to be made on rental method, not on the land and property method. We will refer to those decisions at appropriate stage. He has further pointed out that in this case property belonged to the trust established in Gujarat governed by the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Under Section 36 of the said Act, no property belonging to a trust can be transferred without previous sanction of the 'charity Commissioner' defined in the said Act. In the present case, an application for such sanction was made before the 'charity Commissioner'. Thereupon, a notification was issued and published in newspaper. Offers were invited with a reserve price of Rs. 75 lakhs. But no one had offered except the purchaser herein being the respondent. This price was fixed at Rs. 75 lakhs together with interest @ 12. 5 per cent payable on the said amount calculated till the date of finalization of the same. Therefore, according to him, there was no scope for evasion of tax by undervaluing the property. He further contends that the property is under occupation of tenants, which was held to be an encumbrance in the valuation report itself, where it is noted that there was no possibility of eviction of the tenants. Therefore, these factors are to be weighed with, and the valuation could not have been made on the basis of future prospect of the property under tenancy. In the circumstances, according to him, this appeal should be dismissed.
( 4 ) WE have heard the respective counsel for the parties. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of a proceeding under Section 269ud of the 1961 Act is v
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.