AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (11) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-4 to the writ petition by virtue of which respondent No. 1 has rejected the explanation given by the petitioner and applied the formula of Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre for fixing the price of the property of the petitioner. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with one Sri Sarv Kanwal Jit Singh, respondent No. 3, for purchasing a residential plot No. 209, measuring an area of 450 sq. metres. The total consideration as agreed between the parties for the said property was Rs. 2,700,000 which comes to Rs. 4,600 per sq. metre. In pursuance of the said agreement, an application was moved before the Income-tax Officer in Forms Nos. 34 and 37-I for getting the required permission. Thereafter, the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been raised on behalf of the Revenue by learned standing counsel relying on Rajata Trust v. Chief CIT [1992] 193 ITR 220 (Kar). It is urged that a person who had entered into agreement for purchase of property is not a person interested. He cannot object to the purchase by the Central Government. It is not necessary to go into this as the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] UPTC 163 ; [1993] 199 ITR 530 has held : "Compulsory purchase under section 269UD intending purchaser and intending seller must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before an order for compulsory purchase is made. " Coming to the merits of the case, we find, in this case, before having recourse to passing an order under section 269UD, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under Chapter XX-C. In Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari v. S. K. Laul [1994] 208 ITR 734 (Bom), it is held that the purchase of immovable property by the Central Government, where the order of purchase was made after considering material on record it cannot be set aside unless the order is perverse. It is true that where an order is passed after taking into consideration the materials on record and after considering the same it cannot be said that the order is perverse or is illegal. The question only arises whether there is non-consideration of material on record, misconstruction and misreading of documents in arriving at the conclusion or wrong application of law which may constitute a ground for setting aside the said order. In the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity and, hence, cannot be regarded as conferring arbitrary or unfettered discretion. It further held : " The very historical setting in which the provisions of Chapter XX-C were enacted suggests that it was intended to be resorted to only in cases where there is an attempt at tax evasion by significant undervaluation of immovable property agreed to be sold ..... the powers of compulsory purchase conferred under the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act are being used and intended to be used only in cases where in an agreement to sell an immovable property in an urban area to which the provisions of the said Chapter apply, there is a significant undervaluation of the property concerned, namely, of 15 per cent. or more. If the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre. We make it clear that this court will not interfere unless the illegality committed is perverse or the said authority has failed to consider the relevant material on record or has misconstrued the document in arriving at the conclusion. Admittedly, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has "averred that the price of the market value arrived at by a team of engineers of the respondent was Rs. 5,300 per sq. metre and this fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. Hence, we find that the respondents have not taken into consideration their own record of the market value arrived at by the said team of engineers. Therefore it would be a case of non-application of mind. It is significant that, while....