9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the definition of "apparent consideration" under section 269UA(b) for determining the amount payable to the vendor under section 269UD. 2. Deductions made from the apparent consideration for stamp duty and discounted value of consideration. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Definition of "Apparent Consideration" under Section 269UA(b): The core issue in all petitions revolves around the applicability of the definition of "apparent consideration" under section 269UA(b) for determining the amount payable to the vendor when an order for purchase of the property is made under section 269UD. The court noted that the appropriate authority determined the amount payable by applying the provisions of section 269UA(b), which involved deducting the sum payable for stamp duty and discounting the consideration payable after the date of the agreement. The court referred to its previous decision in Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 866, which held that expenses borne by the purchaser for conveying the property, particularly stamp duty, cannot be deducted from the apparent consideration stated in the agreement for determining the consideration payable under section 269UF. However, the court upheld that any part of the consideration payable after the date of the agreement must be discounted by the prescribed rate of interest. The petitioner's counsel argued for reconsideration of this decision, citing a contrary view by the Bombay High Court. However, the court maintained that a Bench decision is binding unless there are compelling reasons to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 2. Deductions Made from the Apparent Consideration: The court examined the deductions made from the apparent consideration for stamp duty and the discounted value of consideration. The court reiterated that the definition of "apparent consideration" under section 269UA(b) does not support deductions for expenses like stamp duty. The scheme of Chapter XX-C positions the Central Government as a prospective purchaser before the execution of the sale deed, and the agreement to transfer does not refer to a duly executed transfer deed ready for registration. The court also discussed the Bombay High Court's view in Shrichand Raheja v. S. C. Prasad (Appropriate Authority) [1995] 213 ITR 33, which held that the discounted value should be determined from the date of payment, not the date of the agreement. However, the Gujarat High Court did not accept this view, stating that the statutory scheme under Chapter XX-C does not differentiate the definition of "apparent consideration" for different purposes. The court concluded that the definition of "apparent consideration" is consistently applied under sections 269UD and 269UF for determining the amount payable by the Central Government. The court rejected the argument that this interpretation would render the provision unconstitutional, as the constitutional validity was not challenged in these petitions. Conclusion: The petitions were allowed in part. The court ruled that no deduction for registration fee, stamp duty, etc., can be made from the consideration disclosed in the agreement to sell. The part of the impugned order directing such deductions was quashed. However, the court upheld the determination of discounted value by reducing the amount at the prescribed rate of interest. The respondents were directed to pay the illegally deducted sum with 12% interest from the date of the initial payment. Any calculation mistakes pointed out by the petitioners within six weeks would be corrected by the respondents. No order as to costs was made.
|
