THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus SMT. SUDHA PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 10-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
A 
11. 
SMT. SUDHA PATIL AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 269-UD-Agreement of Sale-Under 
valuation of property-Order of Appropriate Authority for purchase of 
property by Government-On challenge High Court held no infirmity in the 
order-Division Bench of High Court quashed the order of Appropriate C 
Authority holding that the method adopted for valuation of property was 
defective-On appeal, held, all germane and relevant materials produced 
were considered by Appropriate Authority before passing the order-Fully 
justified in passing order of compulsory purchase-High Court exceeded its 
jurisdiction by interfering with the conclusions of the Appropriate Authority. D 
Constitution of India-Article 226-supervisory Jurisdiction of High 
Court-Scope of-Held, Supervisory Power of the High Court does not get 
enlarged while examining the correctness of the conclusion of Appropriate 
Authority under the Income Tax Act merely because no appeal is provided 
fr 
E 
Respondent No. 2 Owner of the property in question entered into an 
agreement of sale with respondent no. 1 for certain consideration. The 
Appropriate Authority came to a conclusion that the property has been under 
valued and thus ii) exercise of its powers under section 269-UD of Income 
Tax Act, 1961 passed an order for purchase of the property by the Central F 
Government for an amount equal to the amount of consideration in the 
agreement of sale. The said order was challenged by respondent no. 1 by 
filing a Writ Petition. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petition holding that the order of the Appropriate Authority does not suffer 
from any legal infirmity. However, on appeal, the Division Bench quashed the 
order of the Appropriate Authority on the ground that the concerned authority G 
had no relevant material to arrive at the correct valuation of the property and 
the method adopted was defective. Aggrieved by the order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court the present appeal has been preferred by the 
Appropriate Authority. 
619 
H 
J 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The contention of the appellant was that the Division Bench of the High 
B 
c 
Court committed error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering 
with the findings with regard to the market value of the hmd in the absence 
of any procedural irregularity and in the absence of finding that the 
Appropriate Authority had considered irrelevant materials or have excluded 
relevant materials from consideration. 
The contention of the respondent was that the order passed by the 
Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C having not provided for any 
remedy of appeal the standard of scrutiny by the High Court should be 
different from the standard of scrutiny as against orders of any other inferior 
Tribunals. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The supervisory power of the High Court does not get 
enlarged while examining the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the 
Appropriate Authority merely because no appeal is provided for against the 
D order of the Appropriate Authority. (626-A) 
1.2. The parameters for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the 
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, while examining the 
decision of an inferior tribunal, has no connection with the question whether 
an appeal is provided for against the said order of the tribunal under the 
E statute in question. The power being supervisory in nature, in exercise of 
such power, a finding conclusion of an inferior tribunal can be interfered 
with it the High Court comes to the conclusion that in arriving at the 
conclusion the tribunal has failed to consider some relevant materials or 
that the finding is based on no evidence or the finding is such that no 
reasonable man can come to such a conclusion on the basis of which the 
F finding has been arrived at. [624-F-G) 
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 199 ITR 530, relied 
on. 
Kai/ash Suneja v. Appropriate Authority, (1998) 231 ITR 318, referred 
G to. 
2. The Appropriate Authority did consider all the germane and relevant 
materials produced before it in the course of the proceedings and formed its 
opinion that there was under statement of consideration in the agreement by 
an amount more than 15% of the fair market value. The Appropriate 
H Authority had passed the order fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.