CIGEO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.02.1995 passed under Section 269 UD (1) of the Income Tax Act (for short "Act") and an order dated 24.02.1995 passed under Section 269 UE of the Act by respondent no. 1, thereby ordered for preemptive purchase under Chapter XXC of the Act and further to deliver possession of property plot no. 19, sheet no. 20/A, ward no. 4, Abhyankar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12.

(2.) On 24.11.1994 an agreement of Development and sale of plot admeasuring 9708 sq. ft. entered between petitioner and respondent no. 3 for consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-. Form no. 37-I was submitted by the petitioner and respondent no. 3 as per Rule 48-L of the Act. On 10.02.1995, notice under Section 269 UD (1-A) of the Act was issued to the petitioner and respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were asked to remain present for hearing on 21.02.1995. Notice dated 10.2.1995 was received by the petitioner at Nagpur. The petitioner submitted written submission in response to the above notice to the Appropriate Authority, clearly pointing out non-application of mind in issuing notice under Section 269 UD (1-A). The petitioner submitted additional written submissions. The petitioner was heard by the Appropriate Authority at Ahemadabad in absence of respondent no. 3, the transferor. On 24.02.1995 the Appropriate Authority passed order under Section 269 UD (1) and Section 269 UE (2) for preemptive purchase. The instant writ petition is filed by the transferee-petitioner before this Court. This Court granted stay to the order impugned i.e. order under Section 269 UD (1) and Section 269 UE (2) passed on 24.02.1995.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, we have also found that a fair market value was not determined by respondent-Authority as required under the law. There is no mention about the fair market value of the property. There is also nothing recorded that apparent consideration is less than the fair market value by 15%. There is force in the submission that unless fair market value of the PUC (Property under Consideration) is determined, there cannot be any declaration with regard to the aspect of under valuation. In Mehta Mody & Company ..vs.. Appropriate Authority and others; 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 642, it is observed in para 9 as under:-