9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s leading to this petition are as follows: The petitioners were the owners of Flat No. 11-A of carpet area of 875 square feet situated on the 11th floor of a building known as "Diamond Court" at 40, Laxmibai Jagmohandas Marg, (formerly known as "Nepean Sea Road"). The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.5 herein on November 3, 1992. As per the terms of that agreement, the petitioners were to receive Rs. 5,00,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 70,00,000 within 30 days after the NOC was issued by the appropriate authority. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were the members of the appropriate authority at the relevant time and respondent No.4 to the petition is the Union of India. The petitioners filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the impugned order passed on January 28, 1993. The present petition is filed to challenge this order. The petition was admitted on January 22, 1993 and an interim stay has been granted on the condition that the petitioners will not sell or transfer the flat to anybody in the meanwhile. Mr. Mistri, learned counsel for the petitioners principally submitted that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the manner in which the appropriate authority proceeded to pass the order. He relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India reported in [1993] 199 ITR 530, where the apex court has laid down that in all such cases, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng any such information, it is totally unfair to just refer to some cases at the time of hearing and then to say that there is undervaluation without referring to the particular characteristics of the property concerned. The order arrived at by such a method apart from it being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is unjustified on the merits also. In the circumstances, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity. Mr. Asokan, learned counsel for the Union of India tried to defend the order and alternatively submitted that if the order is found to be defective, the appropriate authority may be directed to hear the parties once again. In our view no purpose would be served by doing this exercise. Now more than 13 years h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
