TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Nos. 4 and 5, being the vendor at a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioner under section 269UD, filed an application in Form No. 37-I of the Act. Therefore, a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on or about January 7, 1993, issued by the appropriate authority. The petitioner duly replied to the said show-cause notice by letter dated January 13, 1993. Before replying to the show-cause notice the petitioner duly demanded and was supplied with several documents, namely, details of scrutiny report, valuation report dated October 21, 1992 and site inspection report. By the impugned order respondent No. 1 did not accept the cause shown by the petitioner and held amongst others that the apparent consideration, mentioned in the agreement for sale is significantly understated and after having valued the said two properties it was decided that the said property would be purchased by the Central Government at a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. Dr. Pal, learned senior advocate, appearing in support of the writ petitioner contends that if the methods and economics of the valuation of the property as done by the Superintendent Engineer are to be accepted then it is a clear case that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appropriate authority must be satisfied further that no undervaluation was done with a view to evade tax. He further contends that although presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised by the appropriate authority concerned in case of the aforesaid circumstances, such presumption is rebuttable and this would necessarily imply that the concerned parties must be given an opportunity to show cause as to why such presumption should not be drawn. Therefore, this court in exercise of its power of judicial review in the circumstances above should set aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, he had relied on the following decisions reported in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Ridge v. Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66 (HL); C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC); [1983] 54 Comp Cas 651 (SC) and Lytton Hotel Pvt. Ltd v. Appropriate Authority [2001] 248 ITR 541 (Cal). Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, while opposing the writ petition contends that the challenge of the writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Before the aforesaid judgment was rendered in section 269UD of the Chapter XX-C of the Act there was no provision for giving hearing or notice to the vendor or vendee, nor was there any provision to supply the materials and/or documents on which the Revenue is to rely. After the aforesaid decision was rendered the said section had undergone an amendment incorporating the provision for giving notice and also hearing to the prospective vendee as well. Both Mr. Ghosh and Dr. Pal have reminded me in the perspective of their own cases of the extent and power of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, of judicial re-view of the decisions like the present one. It is the settled position of law as has been rightly argued by Mr. Ghosh that even if there is no provision of appeal against a particular decision of a quasijudicial authority or tribunal the power of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India does not get enlarged and it remains the same in that case also. Obviously the extent of power is much narrower than the power of the appellate and/or revising authority. I am fully conscious of my power in exercise of jurisdiction under article 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompliance with procedure, formality or rules of natural justice. I wish to examine as to whether the compliance with natural justice has been in true sense observed, following the principle laid down in C.B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC) or not, then again, whether the appropriate authority could hold on the given materials that the transaction between the petitioner and the private-respondents is sought to be made at gross undervaluation exceeding 15 per cent. of more than the real value of the property. The Revenue initially relied on detailed scrutiny report, valuation report of October 21, 1992, site inspection report, to form a belief in this direction. In the detailed scrutiny report the Department had sought reliance on the comparable sale instances in respect of three properties, namely, at 56 Trivoli Court, 1/C Ballygunge Circular Road and Flat No. 8D, 25, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta 700 019. The rate of the aforesaid properties was shown to have been Rs. 1,152 per sq. ft. Rs. 1,290 per sq. ft. and Rs. 1,684 per sq. ft. These rates are taken to be the basis for determining the fair market rate of the property. Admittedly, the aforesaid properties, the sal....