2007 (9) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Road, Vile Parle (West), Bombay 400 056 ('the said flat' for short) is the question raised in this petition. 2. The relevant facts are that, by an agreement dated 21^st November, 1988, the petitioners had agreed to purchase the said flat for consideration of Rs.17,21,000/-. On an application made in Form No.37-I, the Appropriate Authority passed an order under Section 269 UD (1) of the Act on 27-10-1989 for purchase of the said flat without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On a Writ Petition bearing No.3216 of 1989 filed, this Court by an order dated 16-12-1992 set aside the order dated 27/10/1989 and directed the Appropriate Authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ats situated at Vile Parle (East) which are not at all comparable with the flat in question and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained based on second and third sale instances set out in the impugned order. Accordingly, Mr. Jain submitted that the impugned order passed in violation of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.B.  Gautam [1993] 199 I.T.R. 530.is liable to be quashed and set aside. [1993] 199 I.T.R. 530.Mr.Asokan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, on the other hand supported the order of the Appropriate Authority. He fairly stated that prior to the decision of this Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal V/s. Appropriate Authority reported in [1994] 210 I.T.R. 16, there was no pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the property to the extent of 15% or more in the agreement of sale, as evidenced by the apparent consideration being lower than the fair market value by 15% or more. Admittedly, there is no finding recorded in the impugned order to the effect that there is under valuation to the extent of 15% or more of the fair market value. Thus, the impugned order passed in breach of the mandate given by the Apex Court in the case of C.B. Gautam [1993] 199 I.T.R. 530.cannot be sustained. 8. Apart from that, from the impugned order, the Revenue could not demonstrate that there is under valuation to the extent of 15% or more. As pointed out by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, the first sale instance referred to in the impugned order is no ....