VIRENDRA Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act') and all actions arising out of the same. Respondent no.2 owns and possesses a Malik Makbuja plot of land bearing Plot No.18, City Survey No.252/2, Mouza Lendra, i.e. 10000 sq. ft./929.03 sq. meter together with the dwelling units in dilapidated condition in Shradhhanand Peth, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil and district Nagpur. The said property came to be transferred in their favour by the Will executed by one Dr. Balwant Govind Kane with full discretion to lease out the said property on rent or to sell it.

(2.) On 3.1.1991, respondent no.2 society published advertisement in newspapers inviting bids for purchase of the suit property. On 16.1.1991 in pursuance of the above advertisement, nine bids were received. The bid of the petitioner for purchase of suit property for Rs.16,00,000/- was the highest. On 19.2.1991, by a resolution respondent no.2 accepted the bid of the petitioner as it was the highest.

(3.) First of all, as pointed out, the show-cause notice dated 25.2.1994 is vague. There is no material including any sale instance referred therein. No copy of any document relating to the sale instance, even if any, was furnished to the petitioner along with the notice and/or at any time whatsoever. No justification and/or details provided to purchase the property in question. This according to us, is a gross breach of principle of natural justice as no adequate opportunity to meet the case and to respond to the action as proposed to be taken by the authority was given. Such vague show-cause notice deprives the parties to oppose and to raise appropriate defence to the proposed action as there was not a tentative or prima facie view of the value of the property referred therein.