RAKESH C RASTOGI Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi. It dismissed the writ petition that had been filed before it by the present appellants.

(2.) The appellants are the purchasers of immovable property bearing No. 142 at Madhuvan, Delhi. The immovable property was purchased under an agreement to sell dated 26th April, 1995 for the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. The immovable property was sought to be taken over in pursuance of the provisions of Chapter 20-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After due notice, an order was passed by the appropriate authority on 31st July, 1995 which held that the immovable property had been undervalued to the requisite extent in the agreement to sell.

(3.) It appears that after this order was made, the appellants came to learn that property bearing No. 135 at Madhuvan, Delhi had been sold for the sum of Rs. 28 lakhs on 20th October, 1994 and the appropriate authority had found the apparent consideration of that sale to be, in fact, Rs. 28 lakhs. It was contended by the appellants in an application for rectification filed before the appropriate authority that the sale instance ought to have been disclosed to the appellants and taken into consideration and, if that had been done, the apparent consideration under the present agreement to sell would have been seen to fall within the permissible difference. When the rectification application was filed the appellants had already filed the writ petition. The order on the rectification application went against the appellants but the appellants did not amend the writ petition to challenge that order. Nevertheless, the point was taken and is stated in judgment under challenge. We do not, therefore, propose to disregard the point.