9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... si dential house No. 9/42, Suryodaya Colony, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, for the total sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000 (rupees thirty lakhs) and an advance of Rs. 11,00,000 (rupees eleven lakhs) was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 3. Since the value of the property in question is more than rupees twenty lakhs, the transferor was under an obligation to obtain a no objection certificate under the provisions contained in Chapter XX-C of the Act. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 jointly applied on the prescribed Form No. 37-I on September 18, 2001, for a no objection certificate from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 inspected the property in question on November 6, 2001 and thereafter issued the show cause notice under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings under section 269UD(1A) were not followed according to the procedure laid down in the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as respondent No. 1 has ignored the sale instances of similar properties situated at 9/9 and 9/22 Surfodaya Colony quoted by the petitioner solely on the ground that those transactions were not subject to the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act. He further urged that in determination of the fair market value of the property respondent No. 1 has not considered the rate fixed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, proposed for determining the value of the property for levy of stamp duty and respondent No. 1 has passed the order only on the basis of a single comparable sale of the property at 9/31, Suryodaya Colony. The further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparable to work out the valuation of the property under transfer. We have heard Sri Y.J. Pardiwala, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri D.D. Chopra, and Sri S.C. Misra, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri O.P. Dua, the senior advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Misra for respondent No. 3. After having considered the submissions of the respective parties, we are of the view that there is scope for taking into account further sale instances. It will be appropriate that further opportunity of hearing is given to the writ petitioner and respondent No. 3 who are aggrieved because the valuation report was not given well in time and they could not give proper comments on the same. Consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
