Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 269UE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269UD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 269UJ in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Messrs Fedco (P) Ltd. & Another vs S. N. Bilgrami & Others on 9 December, 1959
On the one hand, the petitioners are claiming that they are not having the copy of the site plan or sale deed and on the other they are giving reasons of difference in the size of the auctioned plot and other details. Even in the copy of the valuation report of the approved valuer, dated April 9, 1993, reference to plot No. D-37 is there and the valuation of plot No. D-37 was done. Besides this, the case of Fedco (P.) Ltd. v. S. N. Bilgrami, AIR 1960 SC 415, on which reliance has been placed, does not help the petitioner. Even in that case, it was observed that opportunity of hearing must be given and it should be a reasonable one. On the question whether it was reasonable or not, the apex court observed (headnote) :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Rameswar Goenka And Ors. vs Income-Tax Officer, 'A' Ward And Ors. on 30 May, 1969
On the basis of the above principle it is apparent that 5 days time given to the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable. Similarly, the decision in the case of Rameswar Goenka v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 421 (Assam) has no relevance because in that case the document on which reliance was placed by the Income-tax Officer for holding that there was no genuine firm in existence was not disclosed to the firm and no explanation, therefore, could have been offered. Since no reasonable opportunity was at all given, it was held in that case that it offended the principles of natural justice. It can, therefore, not be said that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioners in this case.
C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992
As aforesaid, in the copy of the valuation report of the approved valuer dated April 9, 1993, the reference to plot No. D-37 is there and the valuation of plot No. D-37 was done. From the total sale value, the cost of the structure of Rs. 7,06,000 was reduced and the land rate was calculated after such reduction at the rate of Rs. 2,840 per sq. yard. According to the respondents the cost of structure of plot No. D-37 was taken at Rs. 3,896 per sq. metre. For the purpose of acquisition under Chapter XX-C èof the Act, the appropriate authority is not bound to take the figure given by the approved valuer. This is besides the fact that the said report was not before the appropriate authority. The object of bringing Chapter XX-C in the statute book was to stop transfer of property at a price lower than the market price. The earlier efforts by way of Chapter XX-A have not brought the desired results and, therefore, the legislation was brought in the present form. The validity of the provisions has already been upheld by the apex court in the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 and it was considered by the apex court that the provisions do not coffer arbitrary or unfettered discretion on the appropriate authority and is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the last part of sub-section (1) of section 269UE were struck down and accordingly sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 269UE were held inapplicable to bona fide lessees and encumbrance-holders in possession and the property in question was to vest in the Central Government subject to such encumbrances and leasehold interests as are subsisting thereon except for such of them as are agreed to be discharged. Since Chapter XX-C does not have any provision for providing opportunity of being heard before passing an order under section 269UD, it was held that the intending seller, purchaser and other affected parties must be given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed order for purchase. It has further been held that the provisions of Chapter XX-C can be resorted to where in an agreement to sell immovable property in an urban area to which the said provisions apply, there is a significant undervaluation of the property concerned, namely, of 15 per cent. or more.
1