1992 (2) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of the appropriate authority's rejection of the statement filed under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the appropriate authority can question the title of the property and the validity of the agreement under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act.
3. The maintainability of the writ petition by the purchasers.
4. The impact of the time limit for passing orders under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act.
5. The relevance of previous judgments and decrees on the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Appropriate Authority's Rejection:
The petitioners challenged the order of the appropriate authority rejecting their application under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the statement filed was premature, invalid, and not actionable. The appropriate authority had directed the vendors and petitioners to file a fresh agreement and statement under Form No. 37-I after correcting certain irregularities and infirmities. The petitioners contended that the order was erroneous, illegal, opposed to the provisions of the Act, and without jurisdiction. They argued that the appropriate authority could only exercise the power of pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD and had no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the agreement or question the title of the transferors.

2. Questioning the Title and Validity of the Agreement:
The petitioners argued that the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to question the title of the property or the validity of the agreement under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. They contended that it was the responsibility of the transferors and transferees to satisfy themselves about the title of the property and that the Department had no right to question the same. The petitioners cited previous judgments, including Mount Plaza Builders Private Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority and Appropriate Authority v. Naresh M. Mehta, which supported their position. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the appropriate authority's jurisdiction was limited and that it could not make a roving enquiry into the title of the property or the validity of the agreement.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Department argued that the petitioners, being only agreement holders, had no locus standi to file the writ petition. They also pointed out that the Supreme Court had ordered that such cases should not be given a final disposal by the High Court. The court, however, did not dismiss the writ petition on these grounds and proceeded to address the substantive issues raised by the petitioners.

4. Time Limit for Passing Orders under Section 269UD:
The petitioners contended that if the appropriate authority did not decide to purchase the property within the prescribed time limit under section 269UD, it had no jurisdiction to pass any order thereafter. They argued that the time limit for passing an order had expired, and the appropriate authority was bound to pass an order for registration of sale. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that no order had been passed within the time prescribed under the Act for making an order of pre-emptive purchase.

5. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Decrees:
The court considered previous judgments, including those in Naresh M. Mehta v. Appropriate Authority and Mount Plaza Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, which had held that the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority was limited to either pass an order for purchase of the property or to issue a no objection certificate. The court reiterated that the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to question the validity of the agreement or the title of the property. The court also noted that the decree in C.S. No. 198 of 1991, which was in favor of the petitioners, was subsequent to the letter dated October 17, 1989, and had not been considered by the appropriate authority at the time of its decision.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appropriate authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by questioning the title of the property and the validity of the agreement. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the appropriate authority to pass an order on or before March 31, 1992, taking into account the subsequent decree in favor of the petitioners. The court emphasized that the appropriate authority's jurisdiction was limited to deciding whether to purchase the property or issue a no objection certificate and that it could not make a roving enquiry into the title or validity of the agreement.