2007 (9) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... agreement dated October 5, 1989, the petitioners agreed to purchase from respondent No. 5 the property in question for a lump sum price of Rs. 45,00,000 subject to the tenancy of respondent No. 6. On an application made in Form No. 37-I the appropriate authority under the Act passed an order on December 28, 1989, purporting to purchase the said property without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No. 93 of 1990. The said writ petition was allowed by this court on December 16, 1992, whereby the purchase order dated December 28, 1989, was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded with directions to reprocess the application of the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ary 25, 1993, the appropriate autho rity purported to purchase the property in question. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the stay granted by this court, no further action has been taken to implement the impugned order dated February 25, 1993. Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order dated February 25, 1993, 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 property in question so as to arrive at a conclusion that there is any undervaluation to the extent of 15 per cent. of the fai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order and, therefore, no fault can be found with the said order. Accordingly, Mr. Ashokan submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The apex court in the case of C. B. Gautam v. UOI [1993] 199 ITR 530 has held that the provisions of Chapter XX-C can be resorted to only when there is a significant undervaluation to the extent of 15 per cent. of the fair market value with a view to evade tax. As held by this court in the case of Vimal Agarwal [1994] 210 ITR 16 it is necessary to first determine the fair market value of the property in question in the light of the attending circumstances. This court has further held that without determini....