Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Anand Mehta & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.

2016 (6) TMI 204 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Acquisition of property - The fair market value of the property in question was determined at ₹ 73,72,495/- and since it exceeded the declared consideration by 30.48%, the conditions of Section 269 UD were held to be satisfied. - Rejection of bid - whether the ITD was agreeable to re-auction the property - Held that:- Respondent No. 3 for rejecting the bid of the Petitioners by the order dated 4th October, 2013 by the CCIT are several. One was that the sale was never confirmed on account o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d despite that participated in the auction. Fourthly, it is pointed out that while adjusting the value using the cost inflation index the price of the property in 2013 would be ₹ 5.07 crores. Further using the cost inflation index the original sale consideration worked out to ₹ 2.04 crore in 2013. It is mentioned that the present value on balance consideration using the cost inflation index worked out to ₹ 4,48,65,348. It is further pointed out that a re-auction is required to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion. - The only relief that can be granted to the Petitioners is to direct the ITD to return the earnest money to the Petitioners forthwith and in any event not later than four weeks from today. - However, considering that the Petitioners' bid was rejected only in 2013, nearly 18 years after the bid it was first made, it appears to be reasonable to direct the ITD to refund to the Petitioners the earnest money of ₹ 16.25 lakhs deposited by them together with interest @ 12 per cent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this writ petition against the Union of India, through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Respondent No. 1), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) (Respondent No. 2), the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-II (CCIT), New Delhi (Respondent No. 3) and the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department (ITD) (Respondent No.4), seeking directions to the Respondents to perform and complete all the requisite formalities to confirm the sale of property at No. 27, Bazar Lane, New Delhi-1100 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e right, title and interest in the whole of the terrace floor with mumty over the ground floor together with 50% undivided share in the plot of land at a total consideration of ₹ 3. 25 lakh. 3. Accordingly, an Agreement to Sell was entered into on 11th July, 1992 between Mr. Raghbir Singh on the one hand and Smt. Vidyawati and her sons on the other. There was some delay in Smt. Vidyawati discharging her obligations. Further negotiations between the parties aimed at selling the entire prope .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ending suit in terms of which Smt. Vidyawati agreed to sell the entire property to Mr. Raghbir Singh for ₹ 56.50 lakh subject to adjustment of ₹ 9.25 lakh already paid by Mr. Raghbir Singh. By an order dated 4th March 1994, the parties were directed by the Court to obtain clearances from the Land and Development Officer (L&DO) and the ITD. Application before the Appropriate Authority 5. In terms of the above order Mr. Raghbir Singh filed an application on 20th May, 1994, before R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h. 6. On 8th August, 1994, Respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice ('SCN') under Section 269 UD (1A) of the Act to Mr. Raghbir Singh as well as Smt. Vidyawati and her children. The SCN stated that the apparent consideration of the property in question was understated. The SCN referred to a sale of a property at Hanuman Road, New Delhi measuring 493.40 sq.m, for ₹ 1.60 crore in terms of an Agreement dated 14th March, 1993. After making adjustment to the sale price, accounting for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

69 UD (1) of the Act holding that the sale consideration of ₹ 56.50 lakh did not represent the fair market value of the property and the same was too low. The fair market value of the property in question was determined at ₹ 73,72,495/- and since it exceeded the declared consideration by 30.48%, the conditions of Section 269 UD were held to be satisfied. Accordingly Respondent No.4 passed an order for purchase of the property in question for an amount equal to the sale consideration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

95. The original purchaser's writ petition 9. Before the auction could be held on 15th February 1995, Mr. Raghbir Singh filed WP (C) No. 524/1995 in this Court challenging the auction notice. An order was passed by the Division Bench in the said writ petition on 14th February, 1995 directing inter alia that the sale shall not be confirmed and possession shall not be handed over without further orders from this Court. 10. The Petitioners herein participated in the auction held on 15th Februar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a request for orders that the bid may be confirmed. It was added that it was only after the bid was confirmed that the ITD would seek the balance amount of ₹ 1,23,50,000 from the Petitioners. 11. Meanwhile, the Petitioners filed CM No. 5410/1995 in the pending WP (C) No. 524/1995, seeking intervention. According to the Petitioners despite requesting Respondent No.4 to communicate to them the convenient date on which they could complete all the formalities of sale of the property in questio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(C) No. 524/1995. The Division Bench negatived the submission of Mr. Raghbir Singh that Respondent No.4 had erred in determining the value of the property at ₹ 73,72,000. The Court also noted the submissions of the interveners, i.e., the Petitioners herein in para 26 of the said judgment as under: 26. Even if it is accepted that the appropriate authority is wrong in estimating 1 % per month as the increase in the value of the property and in making an upward adjustment of 14% for the time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich every purchaser of property would take into consideration for the purpose of assessing the potential of the property. Even while fixing the sale price, it is not uncommon for the sellers of immoveable properties in metropolitan cities to fix the reserve price in such a manner that it takes into account the FAR potential. Land is scarce and is limited in supply. In metropolitan cities such as Delhi; the pressure on land is very high. No willing buyer or willing seller of vacant land or land .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

making such adjustments which may merit some moderation/reduction, still the gap of 30.48% is too large to be bridged. There is no plausible explanation for such a large gap. We do not see on what basis or material it is contended by the petitioner that the whole gap of 30.48% would get wiped out or shortened to less than 15% even if some downward adjustment is required to be made for the time gap and FAR. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the allegations of under-statement of the sale cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

received to the said letters. 15. Meanwhile a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court by Mr. Raghbir Singh against the order dated 5th January, 2012 and the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5th November, 2012. By a letter dated 27th November, 2012, Respondent No.4 was informed by the Petitioners of the dismissal of the above SLP and that with the said order all disputes relating to the property in question had ended. Respondent No.4 was, therefore, requested to accep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oners that the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance amount to complete the sale. On 15th July, 2013, the Court directed the Respondents to produce the official records including the file in which letter dated 11.10.2004 was dealt with and examined. On 15th July 2013, the Respondents were further directed to specifically examine and address arguments on the question whether they had accepted the request of the Petitioner or not. On 5th September 2013, the following order was passed: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h November, 2013. Counter affidavit of the Department 17. Meanwhile a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in which inter alia it was contended that by the letter dated 11th October, 2004, the Petitioners had sought refund of the earnest money and, therefore, had foregone, the claim over the property in question. The said letter was annexed as Annexure P-1. In the said letter, the Petitioners pointed out that despite a lapse of more than 9 years the sale deed in respect of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioners had expressed displeasure over the sale not being confirmed and the property in question not being transferred in their favour despite a lapse of more than 9 years and, therefore, the Petitioners had conditionally offered that the earnest money deposited be refunded with interest in view of continuing lapses of the Respondents. It is pointed out that the said letter was discussed in the order dated 4th August, 2011 in W.P.(C) 524/1995 whereby the Court granted liberty to the Respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Court by the order dated 2nd November, 2011. The fact that mediation was also ordered had to be taken as an acknowledgement by the Respondents of the Petitioners' subsisting right and interest in the property in question. This was further recorded in para 17 of this Court's order dated 5th January, 2012 while dismissing Mr. Raghbir's Singh's writ petition. Petitioners' bid rejected 20. During the course of hearing of the present writ petition an order passed on 5th Septem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

why his bid should be accepted. Re-list on 18th November, 2013. 21. Pursuant thereto the Petitioners made a representation on 13th September, 2013. On 4th October 2013, the CCIT passed an order stating that the confirmation of the sale of the property in question in favour of the Petitioners will severely harm the interests of the Department and further that a re-auction was required to discover the correct market price and protect the interests of the Department. A reference was also made to Cl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 16.25 lakh deposited should be refunded to them in terms of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of sale by auction. 22. With a view to challenging the aforementioned order dated 4th October, 2013, the Petitioners filed CM No. 17081/2013 seeking permission to amend the present writ petition. This application was allowed by the Court by the order dated 19th December, 2013. Thereafter the amended writ petition was filed. By order dated 18th March, 2014 in CM No. 3657/2014, the Court dire .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. At the hearing on 16th May 2016, the Court was informed that the above offer was not acceptable to the Department. Thereafter the arguments were heard and orders were reserved. Submissions of counsel for the Petitioners 25. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that there was no justification in the ITD seeking to cancel the bid by the decision dated 4th October 2013 and to now contend that the Petitioners were not even successful bidders. He refer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oney, namely ₹ 1,23,50,000/-. Reference was also made to an order of the Supreme Court dated 19th September, 1994 in SLP No. 6040/1994 (Appropriate Authority v. Shatabdi Trading & Investment). Mr. Sethi submitted that the Petitioners had always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount and it was only on account of the pendency of CWP No. 524 /1995 that the Petitioners were unable to pay the balance amount and get possession of the property in question. 26. Mr Sethi submitted, w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Shivpuri, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that there was no vested right in the Petitioners to demand that the property should be transferred in their favour since there was no formal acceptance of their bid. He placed reliance on the decision in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma 2013 (6) SCALE 202 and the decision of this Court in Gulmarg Restaurant v. Delhi Development Authority 119 (2005) DLT 648 (DB). Mr. Shivpuri submitted that the current mark .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 65 lakh. Secondly, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the auction, the Petitioners deposited, way back on 15th February 1995, a sum of ₹ 16.25 lakh constituting 25% of the reserve price. The third factor is that the Petitioners went before the authorities and then came to this Court expressing willingness to tender the balance sum of ₹ 1,23,75,000/-. It is only on account of the pendency of the writ petition by Mr. Raghbir Singh, being CWP No. 524/1995, that the sale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of successful bidders at a public auction has been explained by the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra). There the public auction was held on 11th March, 1977 and the plaintiff Om Prakash Sharma was the highest bidder having quoted a sum of ₹ 1,31,500/- for the plot that was auctioned. He also deposited ₹ 26,500/- constituting 20% of the bid amount as earnest money. However, the Supreme Court observed that the deposit of 20% of the bid amount by itself does not a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the abovestated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations. ……. ….. ….. 29. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Investments (2007) 1 SCC 477, in which the Supreme Court disapproved an order of the High Court which had issued a direction which virtually amounted to confirmation of the auction, which according to the Supreme Court was not the function of the High Court. 29.4 The Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) held that in the absence of acceptance of the bid, there was no concluded contract in respect of the plot in question. It proceeded to explain the legal position as under: 28. & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

initial acceptance of the bid and the deposit of 25% of the bid amount did not constitute transfer of property and that DDA could not be compelled to finalise and deliver possession to the bidder after a lapse of 14 years or in the alternative to allot another plot even though the disability attached with the plot had since ceased to exist on the date of the petition. It was explained that auction was only an invitation to offer. The Petitioner there made an offer in pursuance thereto but no acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

money along with interest @ 12% per annum. Thirdly, although the ITD had requested the Court to confirm the sale, the Court did not. In its order dated 27th September 2012, the Court enquired whether the ITD was agreeable to re-auction the property. The CCIT contends that the Petitioners were aware of the interim order dated 14th February 1995 and despite that participated in the auction. Fourthly, it is pointed out that while adjusting the value using the cost inflation index the price of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erence is also made to Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the auction under which a bidder is required to pay 25% of the bid amount, i.e. ₹ 35 lakh, within thirty days, i.e. by 16th March, 1995. The CCIT concludes that the earnest money ought to be refunded to the Petitioners in terms of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the auction. 32. Clauses 11 to 15 of the terms and conditions of the auction read as under: 11. The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax-Il, New Delhi, reserves t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion. 13. The successful bidder whose bid has been accepted shall immediately pay as earnest money a sum equivalent to 25% of the Reserve Price by A/C Payee Bank Draft in favour of the Zonal Accounts Officer, New Delhi drawn on any Scheduled Bank in Delhi/New Delhi on the property being knocked down in his favour in the auction. He should confirm in writing and under his signature that he has purchased the property in the auction on the terms and conditions of sale mentioned herein. 14. Subject t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version