1998 (11) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Compulsory purchase of property under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge to the order for compulsory purchase.
3. Remand of the matter for fresh disposal.
4. Consideration of fair market value for property purchase.
5. Authority's approach in evaluating evidence and market value.
6. Judicial review of the authority's decision.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner entered into an agreement for property purchase, leading to a compulsory purchase order by the Appropriate Authority under the Income-tax Act. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed but later allowed on appeal, remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

2. The authority issued a show-cause notice for pre-emptive purchase of the property at a discounted consideration, prompting the petitioner to respond with objections, citing market value comparisons and transaction details. The petitioner also highlighted discrepancies in the authority's valuation methodology.

3. Despite the petitioner's detailed submissions on market value evidence and fair transaction value, the authority dismissed the documents as non-comparable due to their post-agreement dates. The court criticized the authority's arbitrary rejection of evidence and emphasized the need for a fair and reasoned evaluation process.

4. The court found the authority's valuation approach flawed and biased towards sustaining the earlier compulsory purchase order. It stressed the importance of an unbiased, open-minded assessment of all evidence presented, especially in cases involving property transactions and market value disputes.

5. Considering the prolonged litigation period and the petitioner's evidence supporting the agreed transaction value as the fair market value, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to issue a "no objection certificate" upon payment of the agreed sum by the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

6. The court awarded costs to the petitioner and closed the related application, signaling the conclusion of the legal proceedings and the resolution in favor of the petitioner based on the evidence presented and the authority's flawed valuation process.