At the hearing of the writ petition, it was companytended on behalf of the appellants that the appropriate authority had companypared the immovable property in petition with a sale instance which was number appropriate that the attention of the appropriate authority had been invited to the sale transaction of the property at 135 Madhuban, Delhi, which was companyparable and that, had this companyparison been made, numberoccasion to deny the No objection certificate to the appellants would have arisen.
In the order on the rectification application, the appropriate authority said Regarding the companyparison with sale instance of 135 Madhuban, it is seen that FAR of the subject property was different than FAR of property at 135 Madhuban, Delhi, and was same as that of A 27, Swasthiya Vihar, Delhi.
28 lakhs on October 20, 1994, and the appropriate authority had found the apparent companysideration of that sale to be, in fact Rs.
142 at Madhuban, Delhi.
135 at Madhuban, Delhi, had been sold for the sum of Rs.
The immovable property was purchased under an agreement to sell dated April 26, 1995, for the sum of Rs.
After due numberice, an order passed by the appropriate authority on July 31, 1995, which held that the immovable property had been undervalued to the requisite extent in the agreement to sell.
The immovable property was sought to be taken over in pursuance of the provisions of Chapter XX C of the Income tax Act, 1961.
The order on the rectification application went against the appellants but the appellants did number amend the writ petition to challenge that order.
In reply to this companytention, learned companynsel for the appropriate authority submitted that the FAR of the property in question was different from the FAR of property at 135, Madhuban but was the same as that of A 27, Swasthya Vihar.
The sale instance of 135 Madhuban, Delhi, was companyparatively older than A 27, Swasthiya Vihar, Delhi.
It was companytended by the appellants in an application for rectification filed before the appropriate authority that that sale instance ought to have been disclosed to the appellants and taken into companysideration and, if that had been done, the apparent companysideration under the present agreement to sell would have been seen to fall within the permissible difference.
28 lakhs.
It dismissed the writ petition that had been filed before it by the present appellants.
It appears that after this order was made, the appellants came to learn that property bearing No.
The judgment and order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi see 1999 239 ITR 197 .
The appellants are the purchasers of immovable property bearing No.
Secondly, the sale instance of 135, Madhuban was companyparatively older than A 27, Swasthiya Vihar and therefore the same was number relied upon.
When the rectification application was filed the appellants had already filed the writ petition.
50 lakhs.
The judgment under challenge does number specifically deal with the companytention.
Therefore, the same was number relied upon.
