2003 (8) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Order of purchase of immovable property - impugned order demonstrates that the appropriate authority recorded satisfaction as there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property by Smt. Sushila Devi and Shri Vaibhav and there was no document of joint ownership of the property as mentioned in the will and the remaining half share for which the will was executed and as there was a dispute as to title to receive the amount of consideration, the amount of consideration was deposited with the appropriate authority as per the provisions of section 269UG - orders under challenge do not suffer from any infirmity. I am of the opinion that the provisions of section 269UG(3) are attracted in the instant cases and section 269UG(1) is not applicable - writ petitions being devoid of merit stand dismissed,

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing an order dated December 28, 1989
2. Declaration of provisions under section 269UG(3)
3. Declaration of provisions under section 269UG(1)
4. Failure to tender amount leading to abrogation of order
5. Issuance of necessary no objection certificate
6. Dispute regarding ownership of property
7. Compliance with provisions of the Income-tax Act
8. Dispute resolution under section 269UG(3)
9. Interpretation of relevant provisions of section 269UG
10. Dismissal of writ petitions

Analysis:

The petitioners sought relief in various aspects, including quashing an order, declaration of provisions under section 269UG(3), and issuance of a no objection certificate. The property in question was purchased by the father of one of the petitioners, with subsequent disputes arising after his demise. The petitioners entered into agreements for sale, leading to the initiation of proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The appropriate authority directed the surrender of the property and the deposit of consideration, citing provisions of the Income-tax Act.

Respondent No. 3 defended the impugned order, stating compliance with the Act and the deposit of consideration due to disputes over ownership. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 sought dismissal of the writ petition, requesting payment of the consideration and issuance of a no objection certificate for executing the sale deed. The court referred to relevant provisions of section 269UG, emphasizing the requirement to tender consideration within a specified period and addressing disputes over entitlement to receive the amount.

Citing a Division Bench judgment, the court highlighted the broad interpretation of the term "dispute" under section 269UG(3) and the authority's discretion in tendering consideration. The impugned order was found to be based on a genuine doubt regarding ownership and entitlement to the consideration, leading to its deposit with the appropriate authority. After reviewing the case law and submissions, the court concluded that section 269UG(3) applied, rendering the writ petitions meritless and dismissing them without costs, as the relief sought could not be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.