2000 (11) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Acquisition of Immovable Property By Central Government Purchase of Immovable Property By Central

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the transaction dated September 30, 1986.
2. Validity of the impugned order dated December 15, 1986, passed under Chapter XX-C.
3. Entitlement of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to interest on the delayed payment of the sale consideration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the transaction dated September 30, 1986:

The petitioner argued that the provisions of Chapter XX-C, which became effective from October 1, 1986, were not applicable to the transaction dated September 30, 1986. The transaction should be governed by Chapter XX-A, which was in force at the time of the agreement. The respondent contended that the agreement dated September 30, 1986, did not constitute a "transfer" as defined under section 269A(h) of the Act, and thus, Chapter XX-C was applicable since the actual transfer occurred after October 1, 1986. However, the court found that the transaction was covered under section 269AB(b) of Chapter XX-A, which includes transactions where a person acquires any rights in or with respect to any building. The court referenced previous judgments (Captain Sanjeev Sethi v. Union of India, Multi Rise Towers (P.) Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, and Sunshine Travels and Tours P. Ltd. v. Union of India) to support the interpretation that Chapter XX-A was applicable to the transaction in question.

2. Validity of the impugned order dated December 15, 1986, passed under Chapter XX-C:

Given the conclusion that Chapter XX-A was applicable, the court held that the impugned order dated December 15, 1986, passed under Chapter XX-C, was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The court emphasized that the provisions of Chapter XX-C could not be applied retrospectively to transactions completed before its effective date. The submission of Form No. 37-I by the petitioner was deemed inconsequential since the provisions of Chapter XX-C were not applicable. The court reiterated that neither estoppel against law nor jurisdiction could be conferred by agreement on an authority that lacks inherent jurisdiction.

3. Entitlement of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to interest on the delayed payment of the sale consideration:

Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 15 lakhs, arguing that they were deprived of the balance sale consideration due to the litigation. The court noted that the delay was not the fault of the petitioner but resulted from the impugned order by the income-tax authorities. The petitioner complied with the court's order to deposit the amount once directed. The court found that the income-tax authorities acted under a bona fide belief regarding the applicability of Chapter XX-C. Consequently, the court rejected the request for interest, concluding that neither the petitioner nor the income-tax authorities could be blamed for the delay.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the impugned order dated December 15, 1986, under section 269UD of the Act, as it was bad in law due to the inapplicability of Chapter XX-C to the transaction in question. The rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs. The request for interest by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was also rejected.