TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority for the purchase of the flat of the petitioner for the Government of India. 2. To state in brief, the petitioner is the owner of the flat No. 16, admeasuring 860 sq. ft. built up area, situated on the fourth floor of the building known as Mahim Jolly Cottage Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Bhagoji Kir Marg, Mahim. The petitioner agreed to sell the said flat to respondent No. 5 for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000. Accordingly, an agreement for sale was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 on September 4, 1994, through a broker J. D. Pingale. An amount of Rs. 9 lakhs was paid by respondent No. 5 to the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement for sale and the balance amount was to be paid on or before November 30, 1994. Form No. 37-I giving details of the said transaction and duly signed by the petitioner and respondent No. 5, was handed over to the broker for presentation to the Appropriate Authority. According to the petitioner, when he entered into the agreement, he had decided to quit the job with the bank and to go to Pune and, therefore, he had agreed to sell the flat. However, because of certain health problems, he decided to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied upon by the Department, market value of the properties in that area was more than Rs. 5,000 per sq. ft. of the built up area. The three transactions are shown in the annexure with the impugned order and those transactions were approved by the Department. First two transactions pertained to flat Nos. 102 and 103 situated on the first floor of the building in Anmol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 89, Sakharam Keer Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai. Out of that flat No. 103 was sold on April 28, 1994. Its built up area was 714 sq. ft. and the rate was Rs. 5,490 per sq. ft. of built up area. Flat No. 102 was sold in auction on October 26, 1994. Its built up area was 522 sq. ft and the rate was Rs. 4,957 per sq. ft. of built up area. Property being flat Nos. 303 and 304 on the third floor of Mahesh Cottage on Cadel Road, Mahim (West) was sold on January 31, 1994. Their built up area was 1189 sq. ft. and the price was Rs. 5,112 per sq. ft. of built up area. In his affidavit dated December 1, 2008, the petitioner contended that Anmol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is situated just after the Shivsena Bhavan from where the boundary of Mahim starts. The society' address as per its lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the subject flat, built up area was shown to be 860 sq. ft. According to the petitioner, built up area of the flat purchased by Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhalconi would be 925 sq. ft. Normally, built up area is 15 to 20 per cent. more than carpet area. There is no denial that the built up area of flat No. 9 purchased by Ashutosh Kumbhakoni may be about 925 sq. ft. and, therefore, rate of that flat has to be considered taking into consideration 925 sq. ft. built up area if the rate of subject flat is to be considered on the basis of the built up area 860 sq ft. It is pointed out by the petitioner that in view of the built up area of these two flats and the agreed prices, the rate of flat of Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni would come to Rs. 2,001 per sq. ft. of the built up area. According to the petitioner, the rate of his flat would come to Rs. 2,035 per sq. ft. Of course, as per the valuation made by the Department, the rate would be Rs. 1,933 per sq. ft. taking into consideration the expenses of registration and society borne by the vendor. Even if the rate in the case of subject flat is slightly less than that of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area near Shivaji Park is very posh and is inhabited by the rich and influential and the prices of property in that area are very high. 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the ready reckoner cannot b the basis for determination of the market value while usual test is price which may be offered by the prudent buyer and the price at which the prudent seller is inclined to sell the property in the same vicinity. For this, he relied upon Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover (Mrs.) v. Appropriate Authority [1977] 223 ITR 572 (Bom). There can be no dispute about this preposition. However, the prices shown in the ready reckoner can be used at least to find out whether there was any difference in the prices in the properties situated in different zones. In the present case, the prices shown in the ready reckoner for the purpose of stamp duty in 5-R zone and 6-R zone are substantially different. It may be pointed out that in Vishwa Bandhu Pearyelal Gupta of Bombay v. S. K. Laul [2008] 302 ITR 157, a Division Bench of this court had taken into consideration the ready teckoner to see the disparity in the prices fixed by the Government for the properties situated at Juhu and Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
