9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order annexure "A", dated April 28, 1995, passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), and consequential order of even date, annexure " K " under section 269UE of the Act. A prayer is also made to direct respondent No. 1 to issue certificate under section 269UL of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 on December 17, 1994, by which he agreed to purchase a flat situated at 591, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, admeasuring 243.03 sq. mtrs. for apparent consideration of Rs. 12,00,000. Since the amount of consideration exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, in accordance with the provisions of Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference was not more than 15 per cent. as alleged. On the above grounds, the parties contended that consideration was not understated as alleged and prayed for dropping of proceedings. The appropriate authority after considering the submissions made by the transferor and the transferee passed the impugned order under section 269UD(1) of the Act holding that the apparent and discounted consideration had been understated by more than 15 per cent. and, hence, an action under section 269UD(1) of the Act was called for, for pre-emptive purchase of the property. The relevant part of the order reads as under : " 4. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the transferor/transferee and the same are discussed below : (1) The disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation to be provided has been given in the agreement. Therefore, the cost of construction of the flat is assessed as per Delhi plinth area rate with normal specification, at the rate of Rs. 4,237 per sq. mtrs. (5) The contention that PUC should be compared with 3 or 4 sale instances is not acceptable. The sale instance relied upon by the appropriate authority is of the area where the PUC is situated and, therefore, it is comparable. Moreover, the transferor/transferee have not cited any sale instance of the property located in that area. 5. Moreover, it is not out of place to mention here that one offer has been received by us for the purchase of the property under consideration for the price of Rs. 14 lakhs and to allot flat to the vend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of the powers vested in us under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, we do hereby order to purchase the said immovable property. " It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition. Mr. N. R. Divetia, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised various contentions. He submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the appropriate authority in invoking the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act and in passing the impugned order. He contended that the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice are vague and of general nature and the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity of explaining his case which had caused prejudice to him and it resulted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration 10,066 10,433 (b) as per discounted consideration 9,032 10,150." According to Mr. Divetia, if the apparent consideration of the SIP is considered as Rs. 10,433, 15 per cent. must be deducted from the said figure. It would then come to Rs. 8,869 whereas the apparent consideration of the PUC is more than that, i.e., Rs. 10,066. Similarly, the discounted consideration of the SIP as mentioned in Col. 6 is Rs. 10,150. Deducting 15 per cent. it would come to Rs. 8,628, while the discounted consideration of the PUC is 9,032. Thus, even if the apparent as well as discounted consideration of the SIP is accepted as correct and proper, there is no understatement by 15 per cent. or more of the PUC as alleged by the respondent authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferor and the transferee are residing in Pune outside the territorial limits of this court and, hence, the petitioner may be directed to approach an appropriate forum to ventilate his grievances. Mr. Shelat further stated that as a matter of fact, respondent No. 2, who is the transferor has approached the High Court of Bombay by filing a petition against the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority and is pending in that court. In our opinion, Mr. Divetia is right in submitting that even if the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain a petition, this court is equally competent to entertain, try and decide the matter, inasmuch as the cause of action can be said to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
