Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The next and alternative submission of Mr. Pardiwala is that assuming that the petitioner could be said to have been heard on 16.2.1995 due to the presence of Mr. Deo and Mr. Balghat, the order that was passed could still not be said to be sustainable. He relies upon Grounds (h) to (q) in the Petition. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that the impugned order did not contain any reasons to justify an order of compulsory purchase. He submitted that any such order must record as to what is likely to be the fair market value of the property and that due to the undervaluation, tax is going to be evaded. In the present case, nothing of the kind is disclosed in the order. In support of this proposition, he referred us to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. . The Division Bench referred to the judgment in C.B. Gautams case (supra) and held that it flows therefrom that the Appropriate Authority must arrive at the figure of fair market value of the property in question, without which it is impossible to hold that the apparent consideration is lower by more than 15 per cent. The Division Bench carved out the following propositions from the decision in C.B. Gautams case (supra):

The above decision of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, is a complete answer to the controversy in the instant case. The following propositions emerge from the above judgment:
(i) The provisions of Chapter XX-C are to be resorted to only when there is significant undervaluation in the agreement of sale with a view to evade tax.
(ii) An order of compulsory purchase of immovable property can be made only if the appropriate authority is satisfied that in the agreement to sell immovable property, the apparent consideration as shown in the agreement is less than the fair market value by 15 per cent or more. In such a case the appropriate authority may draw a presumption that this undervaluation has been done with a view to evade tax.

25. This judgment has been followed and the same approach is taken by other High Courts also. Thus, in Sarwarben Temas Khambata and Ors. v. Appropriate Authority , a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held as follows:

In order to draw an inference of undervaluation, it is necessary to determine first the fair market value of the property in question in the light of all attending circumstances. Without doing so, it is not only difficult but impossible to say that the apparent consideration is lower than the fair market value by 15 per cent or more. The figure of fair market value cannot be left to conjectures and surmises, and to justify the order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appropriate authority must come to a definite conclusion that the undervaluation is by more than 15 per cent of the fair market value.
A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in Himmatlal Vadalia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. .

26. In Laboni Developers v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. , another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court referred to the propositions in C.B. Gautams case (supra) that the provisions of Chapter XX-C were intended to be resorted to " only in cases where there is an attempt at tax evasion by significant undervaluation of immovable property agreed to be sold". The Court further held that merely on the finding that the apparent consideration is less than fair market value without there being any satisfaction that the apparent consideration is not the real consideration, the nexus cannot be established with an attempt to evade tax. In Ashok Kumar Soods case (supra), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that where the price given is undervalued by more than 15% then the presumption may be drawn that it may be for the purpose of evading tax. However, it is a rebuttable one. It would depend upon the facts of each case. It may be that even if the property is undervalued, the record may suggest that undervaluation is not for evading the tax. Then the pre-emptive purchase of the property under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act would be illegal.