AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The petition has been filed to review the order passed in Application No. 3833 of 2001. Counsel for the petitioner states
that in that order, it has been mentioned that where the price is less than 50 per cent, of the market value, the Commissioner of Income Tax is
bound to purchase the property. Counsel would submit that it is only 15 per cent. It is only a typographical mistake. Even then, this is not the
operative portion of the order; it is not going to affect the order in any manner. Since it is an apparent mistake, it is now rectified as 15 per cent.
Counsel for the petitioner also argued that in the order it is stated that the Income Tax Department may not purchase the property, if the value is
less than the market price. Counsel submits that the Income Tax Department is legally bound to purchase the property when the sale price is less
than the market value by 15 per cent. In that regard, counsel relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of
India and Others, . Even in that order, the Supreme Court has stated (page 546):
... the very historical setting in which the provisions of this Chapter 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. . .
Further it says (page 546):
Paragraph 3 of the instruction makes it clear that the right of pre-emp tive purchase has to be exercised by the appropriate authority only when it
has good reason for acquiring the property.
Therefore, unless the authorities come to the conclusion that there are ""good reasons for acquiring the property"", the property may not be
acquired by the Department. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the second prayer cannot be complied with.
In the order passed by this court, it has been stated that there is no necessity to implead the Income Tax Department and counsel says that the
Income Tax Department shall be impleaded as a party. This is not an apparent mistake on the face of the record and, hence, the order in this
respect cannot be modified.
If the parties feel that this order is erroneous, they are always at liberty to proceed with the appeal. Jurisdiction under review is very limited and
this court cannot modify the order already passed. The petition is ordered accordingly.