TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction in question, and for a further direction that the Respondent No.1 should determine the consideration payable by the Government including the reduced amount of Rs.1,04,905 and Rs.13,75,000/- being the consideration for the transfer of furniture, fittings and fixtures. The Petitioners have further prayed that the Central Government be directed to make good the loss caused to the Petitioners and pay the amount with interest. It is further prayed by the Petitioners for an injunction restraining the Respondents from proceeding further by way of taking possession of the said property, in pursuance of the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1 had purchased the property being Flat No.6A, 'A' Wing, Ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had filed Form No.37-I in the office of the First Respondent on 19^th June,1992. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 had sought further information and clarification regarding the agreement between the Petitioners. Therefore on 22^nd July,1992, the Petitioners had furnished necessary information and clarification including a copy of the proposed agreement for transfer of furniture to the Respondent No.1. 5. It appears that on 27^th August,1992, the Respondent No.1 had passed an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, which was received by the Petitioner on 28^th August,1992 ordering the purchase of the said property by the Central Government for a consideration of Rs.57,19,095/-. It was stated in the said order that the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 24^th February,1993. 8. Mr. Bhujale the learned Counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the Respondents' show cause notice dated 4^th January,1993 was not a show cause notice at all, but an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act, as the following part makes it clear: "Consequently, we are satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising the pre-emptive right of purchase by the Central Government under Section 269UD(1) of the Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act,1961 and an order under Section 269UD(1) is being passed accordingly." 9. The above portion clearly shows that an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act is being passed accordingly. 10. Mr. Bhujale also pointed out that the petitioners in their reply dated 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parable, as is apparent from the facts regarding Flat No.103. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that even if the rate of Rs.3325/- per sq.ft. is taken into account, there would be difference of less than 15%. It is also contended that for comparison, Rs.3386/- per sq.ft. should be taken as the rates of the three instances relied on by Appropriate Authority seems to be basic rates. 13. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the comparable transactions in the Gazdar Apartments proving thereby that there was no understatement of consideration, relied upon by the Petitioners were not considered at all. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the instances referred to in the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on the affidavit-in-reply stating that all the procedural as well as material formalities, which were required to be carried out, were so carried out by the Appropriate Authority and thereafter, a speaking order was passed, wherein the Respondents have recorded reasons for passing such an order. It is the case of the Respondents that while passing the impugned order, adequate care was taken after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Mr. Ashokan contended that the Respondents had personally visited to the site in question before passing the order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act. However, Mr. Ashokan could not controvert the contention of the Petitioners that all relevant materials and particulars relied upon by th....