2006 (10) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e-tax Officer, in the office of the appropriate authority on October 6, 1997. The petitioners have filed rejoinder. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a plot of land situated at Chinchwad, Pune, bearing survey No. 128, Hissa No.2, admeasuring 1,67,677 square feet. The first three petitioners entered into an agreement of development with petitioner No.4 on September 22, 1993, for development of the property to the extent of 54,000 square feet thereof. The price agreed for the development of this part of 54,000 square feet was Rs. 54,54,000. Thus, the accepted rate was Rs. 101 (rupees one hundred one only) per square feet. As per the law prevalent at that time, the petitioners submitted the requisite Form No. 37-I to the tax authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ideration is arrived at Rs. 29,92,380. The value of the building is deducted from this figure to arrive at Rs. 12,94,080 as the value of the land. This figure is thereafter divided by the area of the plot, i.e., 10,764 to arrive at the land rate of Rs. 120 per square foot. Therefore, it is held that the agreed rate of Rs. 101 per square foot in the present case amounts to undervaluation. This method and the manner in which the property was sought to be acquired for the alleged undervaluation has been assailed relying upon a few judgments of this court. Firstly reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Shreyas Builders v. M. D. Kodnani reported in [2000] 242 ITR 320. In that matter the judgment of the apex cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rnish the same. The other submission of Mr. Asokan was that the fourth petitioner is a sister concern of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and that they are having a common interest. As far as the individuals being common partners in the two concerns are concerned, we fail to see as to how it can validate the order if it is otherwise invalid. Similarly, it cannot lie in the mouth of an authority to contend that the party must seek information if it wants to defend the action being initiated by the authorities. What is material to note is that under the relevant section, it is the authority which is initiating steps of compulsory acquisition of the property for the alleged undervaluation. This being the condition precedent, the authority must disc....