2011 (3) TMI 1234 - HC - Income Tax

Compulsory acquisition - cheque was not accepted as the full amount had not been tendered - even assuming that the petitioner had refused to accept the consideration, the Central Government was obliged to deposit the full amount of consideration with the Appropriate Authority - Held that - Section 269UG(1) has been enacted to protect the owner of the property and/or in other words to avoid a situation where the Government might, after passing an order of acquisition, indefinitely delay the payment on one ground or the other including the ground of want of funds, want of sanction to release the funds and the like. The section, therefore, provides for lapse of acquisition upon failure to make deposit within one month from the end of the month in which order for compulsory acquisition had been made. It could not have been the intention of the statute that proceedings should lapse even if there were no laches on the part of the Revenue, for refusal of owners or others entitled to consideration to accept consideration on the last day, at the close of working hours, rendering deposit with the Appropriate Authority impossible. In my view it is permissible for the Central Government to make a deposit with the Appropriate Authority in advance to avoid lapse of compulsory acquisition, writ applications fail and the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory acquisition order dated August 14, 2001.
2. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Calculation and tendering of the consideration amount.
4. Alleged re-vesting of the property due to non-compliance with section 269UG.
5. Discrepancies in the area of the property and its impact on the consideration amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compulsory Acquisition Order:
The writ applications challenge the compulsory acquisition order dated August 14, 2001, issued by the Income-tax Department under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the order was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, particularly the failure to tender the consideration amount within the stipulated time.

2. Compliance with Chapter XX-C Provisions:
The court examined the relevant provisions of Chapter XX-C, including sections 269UA, 269UC, 269UD, 269UE, 269UF, 269UG, and 269UH. The court noted that the statutory statement in Form 37-I, filed by the petitioners, declared the sale consideration as Rs. 18 lakhs for the first floor of premises No. 4A, Pollock Street, Kolkata-700 001. The Appropriate Authority's order dated August 14, 2001, directing pre-emptive purchase was found to be in compliance with these provisions.

3. Calculation and Tendering of the Consideration Amount:
The petitioners contended that the consideration amount was incorrectly calculated based on an area of 6000 sq. ft., whereas the actual area was 7581 sq. ft. The court observed that the apparent consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs was based on the statutory statement filed by the petitioners themselves. The court found no infirmity in law in taking Rs. 18 lakhs as the apparent consideration.

The court also addressed the issue of tendering the consideration amount. It was established that a cheque of Rs. 34,80,750 was forwarded to Karnani Finance Enterprises Ltd., and a cheque of Rs. 3 lakhs was forwarded to the petitioner on September 28, 2001. The court rejected the petitioners' claim that the consideration was not tendered within the stipulated time, noting that the cheque was tendered within one month from August 31, 2001, as required under section 269UG(1).

4. Alleged Re-vesting of the Property:
The petitioners argued that the property re-vested in them due to the Central Government's failure to tender the full consideration within the stipulated time. The court referred to section 269UH, which provides for the lapse of acquisition if the consideration is not tendered or deposited within the specified period. However, the court found that the consideration was tendered within the required time frame, and there was no lapse in the acquisition process.

5. Discrepancies in the Area of the Property:
The petitioners claimed discrepancies in the area of the property, affecting the consideration amount. They argued that the area should be 7581 sq. ft. instead of 6000 sq. ft., as declared in the statutory statement. The court noted that the apparent consideration was based on the petitioners' own declaration in Form 37-I. The court held that the authorities were obliged to accept the consideration shown in the statutory statement, and there was no basis for recalculating the consideration based on a different area.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ applications, upholding the validity of the compulsory acquisition order dated August 14, 2001. The court found that the Income-tax Department had complied with the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had tendered the consideration amount within the stipulated time. The discrepancies in the area of the property and the petitioners' claims of re-vesting were rejected. The application for adding the auction purchaser as a party to the writ petition was also disposed of.