1996 (3) TMI 86 - HC - Income Tax

Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Writ Petition

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the consideration amount reduction.
3. Compliance with the tendering of consideration within the statutory period.
4. Validity of the deposit made under section 269UG.
5. Abrogation of the order under section 269UH.
6. Suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
7. Obligation to hand over possession of the property.
8. Dispute as to the title and apportionment of consideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners contended that Chapter XX-C had no application as there was no allegation of tax evasion. The court considered the statutory provisions and found that the application of Chapter XX-C does not solely depend on the presence of tax evasion allegations but rather on the statutory framework governing the transfer of immovable property.

2. Validity of the consideration amount reduction:
The petitioners challenged the reduction of the consideration amount from Rs. 33.50 lakhs to Rs. 31.06 lakhs. The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the reduction was not justified under the circumstances presented.

3. Compliance with the tendering of consideration within the statutory period:
The petitioners argued that the consideration amount was not tendered within the required period, thereby abrogating the order under section 269UD(1). The court noted that the statutory period for tendering the consideration amount was crucial and that failure to comply with this requirement would lead to the abrogation of the order.

4. Validity of the deposit made under section 269UG:
The respondents contended that the deposit was made under section 269UG(2)/(3) due to disputes regarding possession and apportionment. The court analyzed the conditions under which deposits could be made and found that none of the prescribed circumstances existed in this case. The deposit was deemed invalid and not in compliance with the statute.

5. Abrogation of the order under section 269UH:
The court held that due to the failure to tender the consideration amount within the specified time and the invalid deposit, section 269UH(1) became operative, leading to the abrogation of the order dated March 31, 1995, and revesting the property in the petitioners.

6. Suppression of material facts by the petitioners:
The respondents argued that the petitioners suppressed material facts, including the receipt of the order and the requirement to hand over possession. The court found that the petitioners did not make any suppression of material facts that would affect the outcome of the case.

7. Obligation to hand over possession of the property:
The respondents argued that the petitioners failed to hand over possession as required under section 269UE(2). The court clarified that the right of the Government to get possession is conferred by law and not dependent on contractual performance by the seller. The failure to give possession does not justify non-payment of the consideration amount.

8. Dispute as to the title and apportionment of consideration:
The court examined whether there was any dispute regarding the title or apportionment of the consideration amount. It found that the petitioners, as joint trustees, were entitled to the consideration, and there was no dispute among them regarding the title or apportionment. The assumption of a dispute by the respondents was deemed baseless.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Central Government failed to comply with the statutory obligations regarding the tendering of the consideration amount. The deposit made was invalid, leading to the abrogation of the order dated March 31, 1995, under section 269UH(1). The property was ordered to be revested in the petitioners, and the appropriate authority was directed to issue the necessary declaration and take all steps as required by section 269UH(2) within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and interim orders were vacated.