Wp/21343/1994 Of Smt. Shashi Bansal v. Office Of The Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21343 of 1994 Between: 1 Smt. Shashi Bansal W/o Mahendra Pal Bansal, C/o. Bansal Industrial Corporation, 11/181/A Fateh Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 Sri. Ramesh Kumar Karnani, S/o. Sri Ram Kumar Karnani 162, Shantiniketan Colony, Sewa Mandal Society, Secunderabad - 500 026. 3 Sri Sohan Lall Karnani, S/o. Late Rawarmull Karnani, 162,Shantiniketan Colony, Sewa Mandal Society, Secunderabad - 500 026. 4 Sanjay Kumar Karnani, HUF, S/o. Late Kishan Lall Karnani, 162, Shantiniketan colony, Sewa mandal Society, Secunderabad - 500 026. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Office of the Appropriate Authority: Income Tax Department rep. by its Members, namely; Smt. R.P. Rahamani, B.Rama Kumar, P.K. Ratho, vth Floor, Central Revenue Building, Annexxe, Queen Road, Post Box No. 5005, Bangalore - 560 001. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (4) Aykar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub-Registrar, (Dismissed ) West Marredpally, Secunderabad (Against R3 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 15-12-1999) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ order or direction preferably in the nature of a writ of certiorari, by callingfor the records pertaining to file No: AA/BNG/Hyd/8(13)(11)/94-95 on the file of the Istrespondent and upon an perusal of the same quash and set aside the order of the Istrespondent dt. 28.11.94 passed U/s 269 UD (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, bearing No.AA/BNG/Hyd/8(13)(11)/94-95. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MILIND G GOKHALE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.R.ASHOK (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki). Heard learned counsel for the parties. An order was passed in terms of Section 269UD (1) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) with respect to the immovable property, ordering thepurchase of the property, on the ground that the sale had been entered into byshowing a lesser value of the property. Petitioner No.1 was the seller, who enteredinto a sale agreement for an amount of Rs.14,85,000/- with petitioner No.2. Theyinformed the income tax authorities accordingly in terms of Section 269UC of theAct. After the enquiries, contemplated under various provisions of the Act, theappropriate authority came to the conclusion that the property had been undervalued and passed the order of purchase. Aggrieved by this order, the writ petitionhas been filed. The case of the petitioners was that although it was a fact that petitioner No.1had entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner No.2, but that agreement didnot culminate into sale and a new agreement came into existence by petitioner No.1with petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. By this agreement, the property was agreed to be sold notonly to petitioner No.2, but the property was being sold in equal shares to petitionerNos. 2 to 4 and ultimately sale deeds were also executed by petitioner No.1 infavour of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. These three sale deeds were for an amount of lessthan Rs.5 lakhs, and as such the authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain anydispute with regard to valuation of the property covered under Chapter XX-C orSection 269 of the Act. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits thatthe sale deeds were not the documents, which had to be taken into consideration. Inview of Section 269UK of the Act, what was to be taken into consideration was thesale agreement, which had been placed before the authorities by petitioner No.1herself. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits thatthe sale deeds were not the documents, which had to be taken into consideration. Inview of Section 269UK of the Act, what was to be taken into consideration was thesale agreement, which had been placed before the authorities by petitioner No.1herself. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out certaindiscrepancies in the evidence where the relevant material was not taken intoconsideration by the appropriate authority for the purpose of valuing the property. Hesubmits that the value of the property was compared to a property, which was nearRailway Station, Secunderabad and was 3 ½ kilometers away from the scheduleproperty. We have not found any material in the order suggesting that the property,which was close in value to the property in question, was taken into considerationfor valuation of the schedule property and for this reason, we set aside the impugnedorder and remand the case back to the appropriate authority for fresh decision. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce additional evidence before theappropriate authority, so that the appropriate authority is in a position to find out thereal value of the property. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 1[st ]September, 2004. _____________________(BILAL NAZKI, J) vrn _____________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) The Rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Wednesday, thefirst day of September, Two thousand and Four. To 1 The Members, Office of the Appropriate Authority: Income Tax, V-Floor, Central Revenue Building, Annexxe, Queen Road, Post Box No. 5005, Bangalore - 560 001. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (4) Aykar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 Two C.D copies.