9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration whereof was fixed at the rate of Rs.20,00,000 per acre, amounting to a total consideration of Rs.68 lakhs inclusive of tubewell, electric connection and one room, fridge, etc. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, in terms of rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, filed a statement of transfer of subject property as required in Form No. 37-I together with the said agreement. It was contended that the land in question is agricultural land. A show-cause notice dated March 15, 1995, was issued upon the petitioner as also respondents Nos. 3 and 4 asking them to file various documents/information relating to the said property. The said show-cause notice reads thus: "Dear sirs, I am directed by the appropriate authority, Delhi, to state as under: 2. Statement in Form No. 37-I under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, has been filed on December 6, 1994, in respect of immovable property/agricultural land at Fetehpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. This statement is signed by the transferors, Svs. Jage Ram and Om Prakash and by Sanjeev Kumar, authorised signatories for R.S. and Co., as transferees. The apparent consideration disclosed is Rs.68,00,000. It is also claimed that the appa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the apparent consideration of Rs.68,00,000. 6. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this matter and to show cause as to why pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act should not be made. For this purpose, you may appear before the appropriate authority on March 21, 1995, at 10.30 a.m. either personally or through your authorised representative. You are also requested to produce before the appropriate authority on the aforesaid date and time the original title deed of the property together with photocopies thereof for verification and return. In case of failure to arrange representation on the aforesaid date and time, necessary orders will be passed in accordance with law on the basis of material already available on record without any further reference to you. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) S.L. Kanaugia, Income-tax Officer, O/O A.A. Delhi". The petitioner filed a detailed reply vide letter dated March 21, 1995, wherein, inter alia, it had been contended: "(i) That opportunity of being heard as provided by section 269UD(1A) with effect from November 17, 1992, as held by the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lands. According to learned counsel, there had been no conversion of the said land and in any event, having regard to the statutory provisions, 10 acres of land is required for constructing commercial building complex. Learned counsel would urge that the area of the said land is 3.35 acres and contended that having regard to the fact that 45 per cent. thereof is to be left out for the roads, the value thereof should not be taken for computation purpose. It was further urged that the respondent authority failed to apply its mind that even if for the sake of arguments, it is treated that the subject property is residential land; the value of the land after paying the external and internal development charges should be Rs.17,30,000 as per the following calculations: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Total land: 3.35 acres or 16,214 square yards or 13,561 square Rs. meters. 45 per cent. left out for the roads = 6,102 square meters (as per the laws of land authority, 45 per cent. area must be left for roads, etc.) Balance 55 per cent. (13,561 - 6,102) = 7459 square meters. The total value of the land at the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the value thereof. Thus, according to learned counsel, even if the lands are to be considered to be agricultural in nature, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, would submit that for the last six years, his client had not receive any consideration and as such, he prays for invocation of equity jurisdiction of this court so that a direction can be issued for payment of interest as also the enhancement in value of the land which had taken place. The judicial review jurisdiction of this court is limited. In Brindco Sales Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [2001] 248 ITR 465, having regard to the statutory pre-emptive right granted in favour of the Central Government in terms of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, this court held that: "Section 269UD has no conditions precedent except to the extent that property is situated in an area to which the Chapter is applicable, and a statement has been received in respect thereof. A pre-emptive right has been bestowed by section 269UD, on the authority having ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
