2008 (8) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chapter XX-C of the Act and further to deliver possession of property plot No. 19, Street No. 20/A, Ward No. 4, Abhyankar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. 2. On November 24, 1994, an agreement of development and sale of plot admeasuring 9,708 sq. ft. entered into between the 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 48L of the Rules. On February 10, 1995, notice under section 269UD(1A) 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 February 21, 1995. Notice dated February 10, 1995, was received by the petitioner at Nagpur. The petitioner s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmissions it is clear that in this matter respondent No. 1 had not fixed any 'fair market value' at all. It is vital to note as has been held by this court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 210 ITR 16, that it is very essential that the respondent should first determine the fair market value' of the property in question in the light of the attending circumstances and without determining the fair market value it is not only difficult but impossible to state that the apparent consideration is lower than the market value by 15 per cent, or more. 4. It is necessary for the Department to give reasons to the defence and submissions raised by the petitioner before rejecting their case. Mere observation that price of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emas Khambata v, Appropriate Authority [1995] 216 ITR 850 (Guf)) (Surya Kiran Associates v. Appropriate Authority [1996] 218 ITR 29 (Guj)), These two judgments are based upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 210 ITR 16 followed in Mehta Mody and Company [2010]1994] 320 ITR 302 (Born); [2008] 4 MLJ 642 also. In Vimal Agarzoal [1994]210 ITR 16 (Bom), the observations are as under (page 33): "Moreover, in order to draw inference of undervaluation, it is necessary to determine first the fair market value of the property in question in the light of all the attending circumstances, without doing so, it is not only difficult but impossible to say that the apparent consideration ....