D. H. NASIR, M. B. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) ). On 21-4-1994, Petitioners No. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell the property under consideration to petitioner No. 4. The petitioners submitted Form No. 37-1 to the Appropriate Authority as required under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as " the Act") on 27-6-1994. The petitioners were asked by the Valuation Officer of the Appropriate Authority, to furnish certain information and documents. On 7-7-1994, the petitioners furnished the requisite documents to the valuation Officer.

( 2 ) ). Thereafter on 14-9-1994, i. e. virtually after a period of two-and-a half months the Appropriate Authority issued Notice under Section 269ud (1a) of the Act to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why an order of preemptive purchase should not be made of the property under consideration, and the appropriate Authority fixed the date 26-9-1994 for the hearing of the matter.

( 3 ) ). It is the say of the petitioners that they gave detailed reply to the above said show cause notice, alongwith the Municipal Corporation map showing the location of the property under consideration a dn other comparative sale instances. It is their further say that on 28-9-1994, two members of the Appropriate Authority inspected the property under consideration. Again on 30-9-1994, petitioner No. 1 gave one letter dated 29-9-1994, addressed to the Appropriate Authority, pointing out: (i) that the review of the ceiling law case of the petitioners, by the State Government was pending; and (ii) that availing of higher F. S. I. Increases the cost.

( 4 ) ). Thereafter the petitioners received from the Appropriate Authority, the order dated 30-9-1994 (Annexure-K to the petition), ordering purchase of the property under consideration, and determining Rs. 66,93,113. 00 as the amount payable to the vendors, and alongwith the said order the petitioners were directed to hand over the possession of the property on 12=10-1994. The petitioners have challenged the said order at Annexure-K in this petition by raising various contentions.

( 5 ) ). It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioners No. 1 to 3 who are the co-owners of the property under consideration, agreed to sell Final Plot No. 213 of T. P. Scheme No. 14, Ahmedabad admeasuring 2095 sq. Mtrs. Situated in Shahibaug Area to petitioner No. 4. They have agreed to sell the said plot to petitioner No. 4, which is a Co-operative Housing Society for a consideration of Rs. 69,00 lacs. Petitioner No. 4 purchased the said plot for the residential requirements of the members of the said Housing Society.

( 6 ) ). It is the further say of the petitioners that they received the Notice dated 14-9-1994 under Section 269ud (1a) of the Act (Annexure-G) issued by the Appropriate Authority. Wherein in paragraph 2, the said authority has relief upon one sale instance. The relevant part of the said paragraph 2 is as under: " Your attention is invited to the following sale instance: Property underconsideration Sale Instanceproperty 1. File No. 855 636 2. Date of agreement May, 1994 4-5-93 3. Description of property Land and Bldg. At Dariapur Kazipurnaroda, Div. No. 6 E. P. No. 213 of T. P. S 14. Ahmedabad Land at Dariapurkazipur, E. P. No. 229/2c+d/part of T. P. S. 14,abad. 4. Consideration Apparent Discounted Rs. 69,00,000/-Rs. 66,93,113/- Rs. 15,87,454. 00rs. 15,56,824/- 5. Area of land 2095 sq. Mtrs. 490. 92 6. F. S. I. Permissible 1. 5 1. 0 1. Rate per sq. mtr afterconsidering scrap value ofbldg. Consideration Rs. 3,216. 00 Rs. 3,103. 00 2. As per discountedconsideration Rs. 3,117. 00 Rs. 3,041. 00

( 7 ) ). In the said notice, in paragraph 3 it is further stated that the apparent rate of Rs. 3,216. 00 per sq. metre and discounted rate of Rs. 3,117. 00 per metre appear to the understated by more than 15% particularly when the E. S. I. permissible for the two properties and the time lag between two transactions are considered. (Empha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document