2003 (8) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Property - income-tax dues of the sub-lessee - Even the sale certificate issued does not mention any liability towards the unearned increase and rightly so, since that was not a condition of the auction. Thus, there can be no question of burdening the petitioner with the said liability. If the terms of the sub-lease deed are taken into account, it is the sub-lessee who is liable to pay the amount and not the purchasers and if the CIT claims to have stepped into the shoes of the sub-lessee and executed the sale certificate in favour of the purchasers, then the liability is of the sub-lessee or the CIT, but certainly not of the purchasers. - Writ petition is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability for unearned increase.
2. Validity of auction sale and subsequent demands.
3. Rights and obligations of the petitioner and respondents.
4. Legal implications of the auction terms and conditions.
5. Relief sought by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability for Unearned Increase:
The perpetual sub-lease deed executed by the President of India included clauses II(6) and II(7), which imposed restrictions on the sale, transfer, or assignment of the industrial plot without prior written consent and allowed the lessor to recover 50% of the unearned increase. Clause II(7) extended this right to involuntary sales or transfers, including those through court orders.

The DDA demanded 50% of the unearned increase from the purchasers, which led to a dispute on who should bear this liability. The petitioner argued that the auction terms did not specify any liability for unearned increase, thus they should not be responsible for it.

2. Validity of Auction Sale and Subsequent Demands:
The property was auctioned by the Tax Recovery Officer to recover income-tax arrears. The auction notice did not mention any liability for unearned increase. The highest bid was confirmed, and a sale certificate was issued to the purchasers.

The petitioner contended that since the auction terms did not include any provision for unearned increase, imposing such a liability post-auction was unjust. They also pointed out that the perpetual sub-lessee, not the purchasers, was liable for the unearned increase according to the sub-lease deed.

3. Rights and Obligations of the Petitioner and Respondents:
The petitioner sought a declaration that they were the sole and complete owners of the property, free from all encumbrances, and demanded the execution of the sale deed by the DDA. They also sought to quash the demand for unearned increase and requested a no objection certificate (NOC) for building plan sanctions.

Respondent No. 2 (DDA) maintained that the unearned increase was payable before mutation and NOC issuance. Respondent No. 1 (Tax Authority) argued that they only stepped into the shoes of the sub-lessee during attachment and sale, and thus, were not liable for the unearned increase.

4. Legal Implications of the Auction Terms and Conditions:
The court emphasized that the auction terms did not specify any liability for unearned increase. Imposing such a liability on the purchasers post-auction would be unfair as it was not part of the auction conditions. The court referenced previous judgments, including Bansal Contractors (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Sujan Singh Oberoi v. CIT, which supported the view that purchasers could not be burdened with liabilities not mentioned in the auction terms.

5. Relief Sought by the Petitioner:
The court directed Respondent No. 1 (Tax Authority) to deposit the unearned increase amount with Respondent No. 2 (DDA) within six weeks, without prejudice to their right to challenge the decision. The DDA was instructed to process the issuance of the NOC and mutation of the property within specified timelines, allowing the petitioner to proceed with construction. The construction deadline was extended by two years from the date of NOC issuance.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the liability for unearned increase could not be imposed on the purchasers as it was not part of the auction terms. The Tax Authority was directed to pay the unearned increase to the DDA, who would then process the necessary documents and permissions for the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.