MUSTHAFA UMMER Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of the Appropriate Authority exercising pre emptive powers of purchase under S.269 UD of the Income Tax Act are under challenge. Validity and propriety of Exts. P7, P9, P9(a) and Ext. P11 as also the further proceedings pursuant thereto are questioned in this Original Petition filed by the Power of Attorney holder Sri. Afsal Muhammed Moosa Alayadath representing Musthafa Ummer and Rafeena Musthafa, who are shown as petitioners. The first respondent is the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Bangalore; and the second and third respondents respectively are the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin and the Government of India.

(2.) The averments in the Original Petition which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication are given as below:

(3.) The transfer was necessitated in the aforesaid circumstances. The project cost, according to the petitioners, had been reckoned by considering the cost of the land acquired by the promoters and by adding to it the conveyance charges. The agreement as envisaged under S.269 UC had been drafted, and statement had been furnished to the Appropriate Authority in Form No. 37 - I. The petitioners heavily relied on the above circumstance which was certified by the KSIDC as Ext. P5, the relevant text of which is extracted herein below: