MANAK CHAND RAMPURIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this writ petition, the petitioner herein challenged the valuation made by the appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department, Calcutta, dated September 22, 1997, under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the immovable property being space measuring 2,688 square feet of super built up area on the east-south side of the second floor being flat No. 2A with one car parking space in the basement with variable proportionate share of land of the building situated at premises No. 4, Meredith Street, Calcutta, and butted and bounded as follows : North : By premises No. 6, Sooterkin Street, South : By the Meredith Street, East: By 3, Meredith Street, and West: By No. 5, Meredith Street known as Piroja India.

(2.) According to the petitioner, two previous valuations were made by the valuers of the authority concerned and those were so inconsistent and incomparable, a third valuation was directed to be made by a valuer of the concerned authority. Such valuation is under challenge before the writ court. Under normal circumstances, a valuation by an authority should not be interfered with by the writ court having no fact-finding machinery to overcome the situation. But when the finding is perverse or capricious or bad from the face of it, the writ court cannot ignore the same specially when there is no alternative remedy of appeal as against the said valuation. This is such a situation. The first valuation dated May 28, 1997, made by the appropriate valuer, Income-tax Department, Calcutta, EAC (effective apparent consideration) of Rs. 38.45 lakhs is 11.81 per cent, below the FMV (fair market value) if EAC is taken as base. The second valuation dated July 18, 1997, the authority came to a conclusion that EAC (effective apparent consideration) of Rs. 38.45 lakhs is 62.47 per cent, below the FMV if EAC is taken as base. As per the third valua- tion EAC of Rs. 38.45 lakhs is 40 per cent, below the FMV (fair market value) if EAC is considered as base.

(3.) The first valuation was made by an executive engineer of the Income-tax Department. The second valuation was made by a Superintending Engineer (A.A.), Income-tax Department and the third valuation was made by the Chief Engineer and two other CIT members being the appropriate authorities of the Income-tax Department. All the valuations were made within the time frame as given under the law. In the premises, one aspect is very clear that the first valuation of 11.81 per cent, was not appropriate from the face of it. It appears to this court that the transferees/respondents Nos. 7 and 8 are much more vocal before this court than the writ petitioner/transferor who has only adopted the argument advanced by the transferees. The contractor is made party to the writ petition but no one appeared for him.