POONAMMANSHANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 15/12/1986 issued by respondent 3 (appropriate authority) constituted under section 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exercising powers under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 48 of the Income Tax rules in regard to the petitioner's Flat No. 8-C, 9 Barakhamba Road, new Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner by an agreement dated 2/06/1986 agreed to purchase from M/s Kailash Nath Associates immovable property comprising one residential flat being No. 8-C situate at 9 Barakhamba Road, New delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 11,45,874. 00 (Rupees eleven lakhs forty-five thousand eight hundred seventy-four) plus other charges as specified in the agreement being development charges payable to the land and Development Officer. The appropriate authority constituted under S. 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued an order dated 15/12/1986 for compulsory purchase of the aforesaid property by the central government at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration.

(3.) Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent authority have practised discrimination against the petitioner inasmuch as they have dropped proceedings initiated against the persons who have purchased flats in the same building at Barakhamba Road, although the rate at which the price of the flat has been determined is the same. The petitioner has given details of those flats. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that proceedings against those persons who have purchased flats in the same building were dropped because the apparent consideration was up to Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) and the central Board of Direct Taxes had issued instructions that all the cases which were pending and wherein the apparent consideration was up to rs 10 lakhs, proceedings should be dropped and orders under Section 269-F (7) be issued. In the case of the petitioner the apparent consideration was Rs. 11,45,874. 00 and, therefore, it did not fall within the scope of the Board's instructions.