TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be sold was fixed at Rs. 26 lakhs each. As per the agreement, petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 were to construct and give one flat of 988 sq. ft. area to each of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The value of the construction was about Rs. 6 lakhs. They were also to be provided with alternative accommodation till the said flat could be ready and given to them. The period for development and construction of the flat was fixed at 18 months and the approximate rent for the alternative accommodation to be provided to each of them was assessed at Rs. 4,000 per month. The agreement with petitioner No. 1 was entered into on April 20, 1994, and the agreement with petitioner No. 2 took place on May 17, 1994. As per the provisions of section 268UC, the statements in the pres- cribed pro forma were submitted by the petitioners to respondent No. 1, Appropriate Authority. On August 12, 1994, the Appropriate Authority issued show-cause notice to the petitioners as to why the said property should not be purchased by the Central Government by passing an order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act. According to the Appro- priate Authority, the consideration as per the agreement between the par- ties was mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....feet, the FSI available to each of them was 3,596 sq. ft. As per the agreement, petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 would construct one flat having area of 988 sq. ft. at the cost of Rs. 6 lakhs. Thus, deducting the FSI used in the flats, the FSI available to the purchaser would be 2,698 sq. ft. The agreed consideration was Rs. 26 lakhs, inclusive of the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs being the cost of construction of the flat to be given to the transferor. As per the valuation report, in respect of the share of petitioner No. 1, Dattaram, in view of deferred payments to the extent of Rs. 16 lakhs and the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs as the earnest money the deferred value of the payment after discounting the interest on the deferred payment would be Rs. 18,70,340. In this amount, they added Rs. 6,00,000 towards cost of con- struction of the flat and Rs. 72,000 towards 18 months' rent at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month. The scrap value of the old construction was taken at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. ft. and was assessed at Rs. 36,630. Thus, as per the valuation report, the net consideration, including the cost of construction of the flat was Rs. 25,05,710. 6. The valuation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was in respect of land and the structure at Chembur. The available FSI was 2,655 sq. ft. and the rate was Rs. 1,531 per sq. ft. of the FSI. 9. In the reply submitted by the petitioners, it was pointed out that the first two properties were bungalows in Brindavan Park Co-op. Housing Society. That area is known as the Brindavan Bungalow Scheme and it is a very peaceful place surrounded by lush greenery with the hills and rich gentry used to reside in those bungalows. The residents of that area included famous film star Raj Kapoor and his residence is still situated in that Bun- galow Scheme. It is contended that property No. 3 is situated at a prima location at 20th Road, near Chembur Station, which lies in a commercial zone. On the other hand, the property involved in the present transaction is situated at distance of 2.5 kms. away from the railway station. It has a very small frontage. It has also no independent passage. After providing two flats to the transferors under the agreement, there would not be sufficient land for construction of bungalows. Taking into consideration these circum- stances, this property cannot be compared with any of the properties shown in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his property is situated. He pointed out the location of the properties the transactions in respect of which were relied upon by the Appropriate Authority and those relied upon by the petitioners, The learned counsel for the respondents con- tended that this map was not placed before the Appropriate Authority. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, to understand the location of this property and other properties involved in other trans- actions, this map would be useful. On a perusal of the record, we find that the Appropriate Authority has not properly considered the different trans- actions relied upon by the petitioners. As pointed out above, there is a con- flict as to whether the transactions referred to in the show-cause notice were relied upon or not for the purpose of passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the Appropriate Authority, taking into consideration the three transactions referred to in the show-cause notice, came to the conclusion that the prices ranged between Rs. 1,476 per sq. ft. and Rs.1,749 per sq. ft. of the FSI. In view of this, he drew an inference ....