TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The petitioners were in need of residential premises for their own use. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the talk of purchase of the property under consideration took place between vendor and vendee in the beginning of October, 1994, and an amount of Rs. two lakhs had already been paid by the petitioners by a cheque dated October 8, 1994, as the token amount payable under the arrangement. An agreement to sell, according to the petitioners, was prepared in the month of October, 1994, but the formal agreement could be executed only on December 1, 1994. It was for the total consideration of Rs. 20,30,000. Since the total considera tion exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, the parties had to fill in Form No. 37-I in accordance with the provisions of section 269UC of the Act on December 15, 1994. The appropriate authority issued a show-cause notice on March 15, 1995, under section 269UD(1A) of the Act, inter alia, alleging that the apparent and discounted consideration of the property under consideration appeared understated by more than 15 per cent. The appropriate authority was, therefore, satisfied that it was a fit case to issue notice and the transferor and transferee were called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transferor and transferee is of May, 1994. The rate of flat has increased considerably since then. Moreover, in the said flat, there is no proper ventilation, construction was very bad and poor and the titles of each flat purchaser is to be perfected. Hence, this sale instance property is not comparable. The second sale instance relied upon has access from rear side of the building through narrow staircase. The date of agreement is of August, 1994, and the rate of flat has increased considerably since then. Therefore, it is not comparable with the property under consideration. The third sale instance property relied upon is of March, 1994, and price rise during this period is to be considered. Moreover, the property under consideration flat is much superior to sale instance property. Moreover, in sale instance property flats, there is no proper ventilation and surrounding area is very noisy and, hence, it is not comparable with the property under consideration. (2) The sale instance property of Kumar Corner quoted is below Rs. 10 lakhs and hence the appropriate authority cannot exercise the power of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch, 1994, May, 1994, and August, 1994. The appropriate authority rejected the above sale instances on the ground that there had been considerable increase since March, May and August, 1994. In our opinion, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is well-founded that if there is considerable increase in price during March, May and August, 1994, the same consideration should have weighed with the appropriate authority qua sale instance property also. By not taking into account the price increase in the case of sale instance property and in rejecting the sale instances put forward by the petitioners, an error apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the appropriate authority. The order, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside on the ground that relevant sale instances have not been considered by the authority. There are additional grounds also from which it can be said that the impugned order is contrary to law. It is the assertion of the petitioner which is not disputed that the talk of purchase took place in the beginning of October, 1994. It was agreed between the parties and as a token of arrangement, a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than 15 per cent. Now, there is nothing on record as to how and on what basis such deduction of 14 per cent. was allowed. Similarly, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is wellfounded, when he argued that the appropriate authority has erred in observing that traffic jam cannot be said to be a negative factor because the social gathering is an occasion and the flat owner will get such facilities nearby, and, therefore, it is not disadvantage but advantage to the property under consideration. We also must observe that we failed to understand as to how the traffic jam and social gathering would be an advantage to the property under consideration. In any case, there is nothing on record and the order passed by the appropriate authority is conspicuously silent as to how, by a "traffic jam" and by "social gathering" the property under consideration would be in advantageous position. Hence, the said ground also cannot be upheld. Apart from the above grounds, in our opinion, Mr. Soparkar, is right in submitting that the satisfaction as contemplated by section 269UD must be based on objective facts. There must be evidence and material to arrive at the conclusion and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
