2004 (12) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Payment of interest - according to the court, even the amounts of interest which have been withheld so far, have been invested in fixed deposits with a scheduled bank and we have directed the applicant-Appropriate Authority to pay the amount of interest withheld so far along with the interest accrued thereon - respondent-Authority has not been able to show any legal or factual ground on the basis of which it can withhold payment of interest despite specific directions of the court - Once there is an order of the court and certain directions are made by the court they are required to be complied with, unless and until stayed, modified, disturbed or reversed by any competent forum - directions issued on April 12, 2004, were not complied with and nothing has been brought on record to show that the said directions were either stayed or disturbed or modified Henc3e assessee s appeal is allowed Held that those directions should be enforced and complied with by respondent-authority

Issues Involved:
1. Enforcement and compliance of court directions.
2. Dispute over apportionment and payment of purchase price.
3. Payment of interest on the fixed deposit.
4. Review applications challenging the court's directions.
5. Delay in payment and non-compliance by the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforcement and Compliance of Court Directions:
The petition seeks enforcement and compliance of the directions made in the judgment and order passed by the court on April 12, 2004, in Special Civil Applications. The court had directed the Appropriate Authority to encash the fixed deposit and pay the amounts to the respective parties within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ or a certified copy of the order.

2. Dispute Over Apportionment and Payment of Purchase Price:
The petitioners, as property owners, entered into an agreement to sell and filed Form No. 37-I as required by section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appropriate Authority ordered the purchase of the property, which was challenged by both the purchasers and vendors. The purchase price was deposited in a fixed deposit receipt due to a dispute regarding apportionment. The court directed the payment of Rs. 115 lakhs to the vendors and Rs. 125 lakhs to the purchasers, with specific instructions on how the payments should be divided among the parties.

3. Payment of Interest on the Fixed Deposit:
The court directed the Appropriate Authority to pay the principal amount along with interest accrued from October 30, 1996, till the date of encashment. Despite these directions, there was a delay in payment, and the petitioners called upon the respondent to make the payment. The respondent failed to pay the interest, leading to the present petition.

4. Review Applications Challenging the Court's Directions:
The respondent filed review applications under section 269UG of the Act, challenging the court's direction regarding the payment of interest. The respondent contended that the discretion to invest the amount and decide on the entitlement to interest rested with the Appropriate Authority. The review applications were rejected by the court on October 27, 2004, which reiterated the directions to pay the interest along with accrued interest by December 15, 2004.

5. Delay in Payment and Non-Compliance by the Respondent:
Despite the court's clear directions, the respondent delayed the payment, citing the need for sanction from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court noted that the respondent had not shown any legal or factual ground to withhold the payment of interest. The court directed the respondent to prematurely encash the fixed deposit and make the payment by December 30, 2004. The petitioners were awarded costs of Rs. 2,500 due to the respondent's non-compliance.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to comply with the orders dated April 12, 2004, and October 27, 2004, and make the payment of interest along with accrued interest by December 30, 2004. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs to the petitioners. The court emphasized that court orders must be complied with unless stayed, modified, or reversed by a competent forum.

← Previous Next →