2019 (9) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9U to 269UO of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') as inserted by Finance Act, 1986. The brief facts are that apartment No.91, Building 103, DLF Silver Oaks, DLF Qutab Enclave, District Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as Apartment) was allotted to the petitioners by DLF Universal Limited, 1-E. Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as DLF) in the year 1991 for a total consideration of Rs. 12,08,052/-. Upto September, 1994 the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs. 15,65,584/- to DLF and a sum of Rs. 2,98,424/- was pending. On 21.09.1994 the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell with one Shri Iqbal Singh Sood. The relevant clauses of the agreement to sell are quoted herein below :- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Registration of Sale Deed." In terms of Section 269UC the petitioners and the intending purchasers submitted Form 37-I. In this Form the cost of the acquisition was mentioned as follows :- (ii) Cost of acquisition of the property by the transfer or by the previous owner if the property has been acquired under other modes mentioned above PAID AMOUNT (till date) Rs. 12,08,052/- Total cost : Rs. 15,65,584.13 When this document was submitted to the appropriate authority it issued notice dated 21/22.12.1994 bringing it to the knowledge of the petitioners that the authority had received an agreement to sell of a similar apartment in the same complex as per which the value was Rs. 22,77,354/- and that after making the adju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 15,65,584.13. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the under valuation of the property is with reference to the agreement to sell of the similar property which was executed about the same time and where the value was assessed at Rs. 20.00 lacs odd and therefore this argument would not cut much ice. We find ourselves in agreement with the counsel for the respondents. What prompted the appropriate authority to take action was the fact that apartment No.62-B in Building No.103 on 6th floor which was also located in the same premises and was similarly situated was proposed to be sold for Rs. 20.00 lakh odd and consequently no fault can be found with the finding that as against the market value of Rs. ....