9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the transfer of immovable property exceeding five lakh rupees without following the prescribed procedure under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Appropriate Authority, regarding the transfer of immovable property exceeding five lakh rupees without following the prescribed procedure under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners owned various properties and had entered into agreements for the sale of their property. The Income-tax Act mandated that any transfer of immovable property exceeding a certain value must comply with specific requirements, including filing a statement in the prescribed form with the appropriate authority. In this case, the petitioners had duly filed the required statement for the transfer of their property in favor of respondent No. 4. However, the appropriate authority, in its communication to the petitioners, raised concerns about the transferable title of the petitioners due to an existing agreement with another party. The court emphasized that the appropriate authority's role is limited to determining whether the property should be purchased by the Central Government, not to delve into the transferor's title or rights over the property. The court held that the appropriate authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by considering extraneous factors and declared its decision as incorrect and unsustainable. The court further clarified that the appropriate authority's failure to make a decision within the prescribed timeframe extinguished its jurisdiction to direct the purchase of the property by the Central Government. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled to receive a no objection certificate for the transfer of the property. The court directed the appropriate authority to issue the certificate within a specified timeframe and emphasized that the authority should adhere to its jurisdiction as defined by the Act in future cases. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute and granting the relief sought by directing the issuance of a no objection certificate for the property transfer to respondent No. 4. In conclusion, the court's judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory procedures and limitations on the authority's jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act. The ruling provided clarity on the appropriate authority's role in property transfers and highlighted the need for strict compliance with the prescribed legal requirements to avoid exceeding statutory powers.
|
