LexSRI K.V. SHIVAKUMAR AND ANR. versus THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRI K.V. SHIV AKUMAR AND ANR.
A
v.
THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 17, 2000
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.J
B
Income Tax Ac~ 1961 :
Chapter XX-A and XX-C-Object of-Held, is to penalise those who
evade tax by undervaluing the prope1ty tra11Sfe"ed under the instrument of C
transfer-Income Tax.
Sections 269-UD, 269-UC and 269-UE-Compulsory purchase of im-
movable propeity by the Appropriate Autholity-Transf er or receiving full con-
sideration and handing over possession to the Central Govemment-Order of
Appropriate Authority upheld by High Court-Supreme Court reversing the D
order of the High Court fallowing C.B. Gautam 's case *-But while so revers-
ing the order of the High Court, no direction issued for de nova proceedings
or start of proceedings from anterior date-Appropriate Authority deciding
the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in
the light of principles laid down in C.B. Gautam's case-By the fresh order
also, ordering pre-emptive punhase uf the property by the Central Guvemme/lf
lzutding that prope1ty was unde1valued under the sale agreement-Held, under
such circumstances, the fresh order of the Appropriate Authority does not
suffer from any serious illegality or infirmity wa"anting inteiference.
E
Words and Phrases-Words Yails to tender''-Meaning of-In the con-
F
text of Section 269· UH of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Trust 'V' entered into an agreement with another Trust 'R' for sale
of an immovable property for a consideration Rs. 1,55,00,000 and the
transferor and transferee jointly submitted applications in the prescribed
form to the Appropriate Authority, an action for pre-emptive purchase of G
property was taken by him. Appropriate Authority directed that the
property be purchased by the Central Government at a discounted value
of Rs. 1,50,17 ,084. Both transferor and transferee challenged the order
before High Court by way of writ petitions. The writ petitions as well as
the writ appeals were dismissed by the High Court. However, a Certificate H
991
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 1 S.C.R.
A of fitness was granted by the High Court to appeal before Supreme Court.
The said appeal was allowed by Supreme Court relying on the decision of
C.B. Gautam's case.
In the meantime the said property was put up for auction sale and
one of the trustees of Trust 'R' gave the highest bid which was accepted.
B The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e., 47,01,000.
However, auction purchaser in spite of the repeated reminder failed to
deposit the balance amount. Auction purchaser filed a writ petition for a
direction to the Appropriate Authority and the Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax to evict the tenants from the property in question by taking
C recourse to Section 269-UE of the Income Tax Act and to deliver vacant
possession or for a direction to refund the amount of 47 ,01,000 with
interest. A writ pdition for similar relief was filed by a nominee of the
auction purchaser. However, the writ petitions as well as the writ appeals
were dismissed by the High Court. Appeals against the said orders were
D filed before the Supreme Court in which notice was issued.
During pendency of these cases before Supreme Court, Trust 'V' filed
a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing a fresh order passed
by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269 {;D (1) of the Act and
sought a writ of mandamus to the Chief CIT to issue 'No Objection' to
E the transferor and the proposed transferee as the property in question
revested with the transferor after the Supreme Court reversed the earlier
order of the High Court. Thust 'R' also filed a writ petition seeking similar
relief. Both Trust 'V' and Trust 'R' moved a transfer petition before
Supreme Court for the transfer of the said writ from the High Court to
F Supreme Court and the same was allowed and clubbed together with the
earlier appeals filed by the auction purchasers and his nominee.
It was contended by appellants that the Appropriate Authority com-
mitted an error in adopting a discounted value of the property and fixing
its apparent consideration; and that since the apparent consideration as
G prescribed in Section 269-UA(b )(i) was not tendered by the Central
Government the order of the purchase of the building by the Central
Government under sub- section (1) of Section 269 l:D stood abrogated aud
the property stood reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.