Bimal Chandra Basak, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a proceeding initiated under Section 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to acquisition of the property of the petitioner's undivided l/9th share in premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, and the notice issued under Section 269D(1) of the Act dated 7th of September, 1972, and the proceeding thereunder instituted by respondent No. 1 and the notice dated 25/28th of November, 1974, issued by respondent No, 2 and all proceedings thereunder. The facts are shortly as follows:
(2.) The petitioner purchased l/9th share of the premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. This conveyance was executed on 9th of March, 1973. A notice was issued to the petitioner on the 3rd of August, 1973, by the Valuation Officer of the I.T. Dept. stating that a reference had been made to him for determination of the fair market value of the said premises. Time was fixed for such hearing. Thereafter, a notice under Sections 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was received by the petitioner. This was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 22nd of September, 1973. A notice was issued by respondent No. 2 on 25/28th of November, 1974. whereby he requested the petitioner to show cause why the property should not be acquired as proposed by respondent No. 1. In this case, an affidavit has been affirmed by one Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty on behalf of the respondent whereby the "reason to believe" has been disclosed in para. 26 of the petition. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is based on Section 269C which I quote hereinbelow : "269C. Immovable property in respect of which proceedings for acquisition may be taken.--(1) Where the competent authority has reason to believe that any immovable property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees has been transferred by a person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferor) to another person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferee) for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of-- (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under this Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer; or (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or this Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (XXVII of 1957), the competent authority may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, initiate proceedings for the acquisition of such property under this Chapter: Provided that before initiating such proceedings, the competent authority shall record his reasons for doing so: Provided further that no such proceedings shall be initiated unless the competent authority has reason to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than fifteen per cent. of such apparent consideration. (2) In any proceedings under this Chapter in respect of any immovable property,-- (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than twenty-five per cent, of such apparent consideration, it shall be conclusive proof that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer; (b) where the property has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than its fair market value, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as is referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)."
(3.) Dr. Pal has submitted that in this particular case three conditions were required on the basis of which such a reason to believe can be formed. He has submitted that in the present case there is no material to form such a reason to believe. The pre-condition for forming such a reason to believe are as follows :;