9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order annexure "A", dated April 28, 1995, passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), and consequential order of even date, annexure " K " under section 269UE of the Act. A prayer is also made to direct respondent No. 1 to issue certificate under section 269UL of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 on December 17, 1994, by which he agreed to purchase a flat situated at 591, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, admeasuring 243.03 sq. mtrs. for apparent consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i), (ii) of the Act. It was also contended that comparison with only one sale instance was misleading, and that the difference was not more than 15 per cent. as alleged. On the above grounds, the parties contended that consideration was not understated as alleged and prayed for dropping of proceedings. The appropriate authority after considering the submissions made by the transferor and the transferee passed the impugned order under section 269UD(1) of the Act holding that the apparent and discounted consideration had been understated by more than 15 per cent. and, hence, an action under section 269UD(1) of the Act was called for, for pre-emptive purchase of the property. The relevant part of the order reads as under : " 4. We have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -------------- (4) The cost of construction of the flat to be provided to the vendor has not been given in the agreement. Also no specification to be provided has been given in the agreement. Therefore, the cost of construction of the flat is assessed as per Delhi plinth area rate with normal specification, at the rate of Rs. 4,237 per sq. mtrs. (5) The contention that PUC should be compared with 3 or 4 sale instances is not acceptable. The sale instance relied upon by the appropriate authority is of the area where the PUC is situated and, therefore, it is comparable. Moreover, the transferor/transferee have not cited any sale instance of the property located in that area. 5. Moreover, it is not out of place to mention here that one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferor we are satisfied that it is a fit case for pre-emptive purchase of the property under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in us under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, we do hereby order to purchase the said immovable property. " It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition. Mr. N. R. Divetia, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised various contentions. He submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the appropriate authority in invoking the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act and in passing the impugned order. He contended that the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice are vague and of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the SIP and noted the same in Col. No. 6. The said column reads as under : PUC SIP (Rs.) (Rs.) " 6. Rate per sq. mtr. FSI (a) as per apparent consideration 10,066 10,433 (b) as per discounted consideration 9,032 10,150." According to Mr. Divetia, if the apparent consideration of the SIP is considered as Rs. 10,433, 15 per cent. must be deducted from the said figure. It would then come to Rs. 8,869 whereas the apparent consideration of the PUC is more than that, i.e., Rs. 10,066. Similarly, the discounted consideration of the SIP as mentioned in Col. 6 is Rs. 10,150. Deducting 15 per cent. it would come to Rs. 8,628, while the discounted consideration of the PUC is 9,032. Thus, even if the apparent as well as discounted consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he immovable property which is the subject-matter of the present petition is situated in Pune within the local limits of the High Court of Bombay. Both the transferor and the transferee are residing in Pune outside the territorial limits of this court and, hence, the petitioner may be directed to approach an appropriate forum to ventilate his grievances. Mr. Shelat further stated that as a matter of fact, respondent No. 2, who is the transferor has approached the High Court of Bombay by filing a petition against the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority and is pending in that court. In our opinion, Mr. Divetia is right in submitting that even if the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain a petition, this court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
