2002 (1) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Government's deposit of the consideration amount with the appropriate authority.
2. Compliance with the provisions of sections 269UG and 269UH of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Consequences of non-compliance with the statutory requirements for tendering or depositing the consideration amount.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the Central Government's deposit of the consideration amount with the appropriate authority

The Central Government deposited the apparent consideration with the appropriate authority on April 28, 1995, instead of tendering it directly to the property owners. The learned single judge held that this deposit was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The judgment emphasized that the Central Government had no justification for not tendering the amount directly to the trustees, as there was no dispute over the title or refusal to accept the consideration by the trustees.

Issue 2: Compliance with the provisions of sections 269UG and 269UH of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Section 269UG mandates that the consideration amount must be tendered to the entitled persons within one month from the end of the month in which the property vests in the Central Government. The provision allows for depositing the amount with the appropriate authority only under specific contingencies, such as disputes over apportionment or title. The court found that neither of these contingencies existed in this case, as there was no dispute over the title and the trustees did not refuse to accept the payment. Therefore, the Central Government's deposit with the appropriate authority was not justified.

Issue 3: Consequences of non-compliance with the statutory requirements for tendering or depositing the consideration amount

Section 269UH stipulates that if the Central Government fails to tender or deposit the consideration amount within the specified period, the order to purchase the property stands abrogated, and the property revests in the original owners. The court held that the failure to tender the amount directly to the trustees within the stipulated time led to the automatic revesting of the property in the original owners. The learned single judge's decision was upheld, confirming that the deposit made by the Central Government was invalid, and the property stood revested in the original owners.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the learned single judge's decision that the Central Government's deposit of the consideration amount with the appropriate authority was invalid. The failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 269UG and 269UH resulted in the automatic revesting of the property in the original owners. The court emphasized that the statutory requirements for tendering or depositing the consideration amount are mandatory and must be strictly followed.