VISHNU MARUTI GHOSALE Vs. APPROPARIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 23, 1995, wherein, the appropriate authority has ordered preemptive purchase of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 under section 269ud (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('act' for short). According to the petitioners the findings recorded in the impugned order that the apparent consideration has been undervalued by 15% or more than the fair market value is wholly erroneous because, firstly, the sale instance property ('sip' for short) referred to in the impugned order is not comparable and secondly, even on the basis of the price of the SIP it is not established that the alleged under-valuation exceeds 15% or more than the fair market value and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a open plot of land bearing Survey No. 113 admeasuring 3 hectares and 93 ares situated at Village Varje, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. Out of the said lands, development rights in respect of 7 acres of land were given by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to the petitioner No. 4 for development under the development agreement dated November 14, 1994. The said 7 acres of land are situated to the north of national Highway No. II on the hilltop and the consideration shown in the said development agreement was Rs. 80,00,000/ -.

(3.) The petitioners forwarded the said development agreement along with the requisite form No. 37-I to the competent authority seeking approval of the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Act. On February 9, 1995 a notice was issued under section 269ud (1a) for purchase of the said property on the ground that the apparent consideration shown in the agreement dated november 14, 1994 was undervalued by more than 15%. The petitioners replied to the said show cause notice inter alia contending that the SIP referred to in the show cause notice is not comparable and that even if the price of the SIP taken into account, it cannot be said that the alleged undervaluation is 15% or more and hence the proceedings be dropped. Rejecting the contentions of the petitioners, the appropriate authority by its order dated February 23, 1995 held that the apparent consideration in respect of the property under consideration ('puc' for short) has been understated by more than 15% and, accordingly ordered that it is a fit case for pre-emptive purchase under section 269ud (1) of the Act. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed.