GOVARDHANDAS ODHAVJI DHAKAN Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE IT Act ('the Act' for short) for purchase of Flat No.11 (3rd floor) Vatika, Vile Parle Vatika CHS Ltd., Baptista Road, Vile Parle (West), Bombay 400 056 ('the said flat' for short) is the question raised in this petition. for consideration of Rs. 17,21,000. On an application made in Form No. 37 -I, the Appropriate Authority passed an order directions given by the apex Court in the case of C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC). purchase of the said flat under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. By the said reply, the Appropriate Authority was called upon to furnish a copy of the report regarding valuation of the property. Admittedly, copy of the valuation report has not been purchase the said flat under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. Challenging the said order, present petition is filed.

(2.) MR . Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be quashed and set aside because, firstly, the Appropriate Authority has not determined the fair market value of the said flat so as to satisfy the test of difference of 15 per cent criteria. Secondly, out of three sale instances referred to in the impugned order, the first sale instance though relatable to the flat in question, the difference in the price variation being less than 15 per cent, the said flat could not be purchased based on the first sale instance. As regards the second and third sale instances are concerned, they pertained to the flats situated at Vile Parle (East) which are not at all comparable with the flat in question and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained based on second and third sale instances set out in the impugned order. Accordingly, Mr. Jain submitted that the impugned order passed in violation of the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the case of C.B. Gautam (supra) is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) MR . Asokan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand supported the order of the Appropriate Authority. He fairly stated that prior to the decision of this Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal vs. Appropriate Authority (1994) 121 CTR (Bom) 99 : (1994) 210 ITR 16 (Bom), there was no practise of determining the fair market value in respect of property purchased under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. He submitted that in the present case, petitioners have not furnished any sale instance in support of their contention. In these circumstances on the basis of sale instances on record, the Appropriate Authority was justified in passing the impugned order.