9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchase was not valid. - 1017 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2008 - ANOOP V. MOHTA and C. L. PANGARKAR JJ. M. G. Bhangde and V. V. Bhangde for the petitioner. A. S. Jaiswal for respondent No. 1. S. K. Mishra for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. Anoop V. Mohta J.-The petitioner has challenged the impugned order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "IT Act") and all actions arising out of the same. Respondent No. 2 owns and possesses a Malik Makbuja plot of land bearing Plot No. 18, City Survey No. 252/2, Mouza Lendra, i.e., 10,000 sq. ft./929.03 sq. metre together with the dwelling units in dilapidated condition in Shradhhanand Peth, Bajaj Nagar, Nag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000. On August 5, 1992, the Charity Commissioner passed an order granting necessary sanction/permission to sell the suit property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 18,00,000. On December 24/25, 1993, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 2-society. On December 29, 1993, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 submitted Form 37-I to the Appropriate Authority. On February 25, 1994, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and respondent No. 2 under section 269UD(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were asked to remain present on March 22, 1994, for hearing. On March 21, 1994, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed their reply to the show-cause notice. On March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India [2001] 251 ITR 197 (SC), Nirmal Laxminarayan v. Appropriate Authority [1997] 223 ITR 572 (Bom) ; [1995] 2 Mah LJ 775, Shreyas Builders v. M. D. Kodnani [2000] 242 ITR 320 (Bom), Jagdish Electronics (India) P. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [2000] 242 ITR 326 (Bom), Smt. Pratibha Sheth v. S. C. Prasad [2006] 281 ITR 338 (Bom), Jai Nadershah Karani v. C. M. Betgeri, CIT [2007] 290 ITR 594 (Bom). In all the above cases, such show-cause notices and actions arising out of the same including orders were quashed and set aside for the similar reasons. 4. Even after going through the impugned order/action, we have noted that the sale instance as relied on, of which no copy was served at the relevant time and/or at any time to the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the tender notice dated January 3, 1991, instead of the agreement dated December 24, 1993, though there is no justification whatsoever given while comparing with a non-comparable property ; vide Mehta Modi and Co. v. Appropriate Authority [2008] 4 Mah LJ 642 and Writ Petition No. 558 of 1995-Cigeo Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority dated August 29, 2008 [2010] 322 ITR 474 (Bom) and Writ Petition No. 719 of 1993-Shewalkar Developers Private limited v. Union of India decided on August 7, 2008 [2010] 320 ITR 318 (Bom). Above cases support the submissions of the petitioner's counsel in all respects. 5. Importantly, respondent No. 2 after complying with all the formalities being a trust and property being a trust property, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
