9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uare yard). After the purchase of the land, they constructed a super-structure specially suited to automobile business in which their husbands were interested and who were doing business at Anand. However, the husbands of the petitioners were not interested in developing their business at Ahmedabad. On October 20, 1993, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 entered into a written agreement of sale with petitioner No. 6, which is a public limited company, for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs in respect of. the said property. Before that, the said property was got evaluated through a Government Approved Valuer who valued it at Rs. 62,93,000. The petitioners submitted Form No. 37-I on October 27, 1993. In the said form, it was specifically mentioned that M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchase of the said property for a net consideration of Rs. 58,99,581. That order is challenged in the present petition. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that-- (i) the impugned order is illegal because the show-cause notice issued by the appropriate authority is absolutely vague and in substance is no notice except an empty formality ; (ii) neither petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 nor the tenants were given any notice ; (iii) the market value arrived at by the appropriate authority is also on the face of it illegal and without appreciating the relevant factors ; (iv) the finding that there is difference of more than 15 per cent. between the market price and the apparent consideration is patently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not disputed that as per the terms of the agreement, the apparent consideration for sale of the said property is Rs. 64 lakhs. The purchasers have paid Rs. 12,80,000 on the date of execution of the agree ment to sell. It was also agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 51,20,000 would be paid to the vendors by the purchasers within 15 days from the date of receipt of the no objection certificate as provided under section 269UC and the certificate under section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act whichever is later from the appropriate authority and on the execution and registration of the sale deed and at the time of handing over actual physical possession of the said property. In the agreement to sell, it s also mentioned in clause 13 that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer is made, being immovable property of the nature referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (d), means,-- (i) if the immovable property is to be transferred by way of sale, the consideration for such transfer as specified in the agreement for transfer ;... and where the whole or any part of the consideration for such transfer is payable on any date or dates falling after the date of such agreement for transfer, the value of the consideration payable after such date shall be deemed to be the discounted value of such consideration, as on the date of such agreement for transfer, determined by adopting such rate of interest as may be prescribed in this behalf. " Considering the definition given above, the Legislature has provided for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consideration payable under that sub-section shall be reduced by such sum as the appropriate authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may by order determine. Therefore, the appropriate authority is given power to reduce the apparent consideration only as provided under section 269UA(b)(1) and 2 69UF(2). There is no other power for reducing the apparent consideration. Hence, in our view, it is not open to the appropriate authority to reduce the apparent consideration by holding that, as the vendor is required to pay for the stamp duty and charges for registration of the document, that amount of apparent consideration should be reduced. Further, this question is also decided by this court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth [199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -emptive purchase. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be held that the appropriate authority was not justified in passing the order for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, because the apparent consideration is not less than 15 per cent. of Rs. 73,39,800 which is the market value fixed by the appropriate authority. If that market price is reduced by 15 per cent., it comes to Rs. 62,30,880, which is admittedly less than Rs. 64 lakhs. Further, even discounting it by Rs. 1,32,419 on the basis of the proviso to section 269UA(b), as determined by the appropriate authority, it works out to Rs. 62,67,581 which is more than Rs. 62,38,870. In our view, there was no justifiable reason for reducing the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
