9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have filed rejoinder. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a plot of land situated at Chinchwad, Pune, bearing survey No. 128, Hissa No.2, admeasuring 1,67,677 square feet. The first three petitioners entered into an agreement of development with petitioner No.4 on September 22, 1993, for development of the property to the extent of 54,000 square feet thereof. The price agreed for the development of this part of 54,000 square feet was Rs. 54,54,000. Thus, the accepted rate was Rs. 101 (rupees one hundred one only) per square feet. As per the law prevalent at that time, the petitioners submitted the requisite Form No. 37-I to the tax authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners received a show-cause notice dated November 25,1993 calli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrive at Rs. 12,94,080 as the value of the land. This figure is thereafter divided by the area of the plot, i.e., 10,764 to arrive at the land rate of Rs. 120 per square foot. Therefore, it is held that the agreed rate of Rs. 101 per square foot in the present case amounts to undervaluation. This method and the manner in which the property was sought to be acquired for the alleged undervaluation has been assailed relying upon a few judgments of this court. Firstly reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Shreyas Builders v. M. D. Kodnani reported in [2000] 242 ITR 320. In that matter the judgment of the apex court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 was followed and it was held that the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and that they are having a common interest. As far as the individuals being common partners in the two concerns are concerned, we fail to see as to how it can validate the order if it is otherwise invalid. Similarly, it cannot lie in the mouth of an authority to contend that the party must seek information if it wants to defend the action being initiated by the authorities. What is material to note is that under the relevant section, it is the authority which is initiating steps of compulsory acquisition of the property for the alleged undervaluation. This being the condition precedent, the authority must disclose to the party concerned, as to how the said transaction which was being undertaken by the party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
