9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent-authority - - - - - Dated:- 22-12-2004 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J.- This petition has been moved seeking enforcement and compliance of the directions made in the judgment and order passed by this court on April 12, 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2171 of 1997, Special Civil Application No. 3399 of 1997 and Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 1996 (Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh v. P. Saxena, CIT [2005] 277 ITR 363 (Guj)). The petitioners, as owners of the property entered into an agreement to sell on January 25, 1996, and in pursuance thereof filed Form No. 37-I as required by the provisions of section 269UC of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The Appropriate Authority acting under the provisions of the said Chapter ordered purchase of the property. The said order came to be challenged by the purchasers (SCA No. 8606 of 1996 and by the vendors, i.e., the present petitioners (SCA No. 2171 of 1997. The petitions came to be admitted. During the course of the pendency of the petitions, the purchase price which was received from the Central Government was depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original investment made on October 30, 1996. (b) Similarly, the Appropriate Authority shall pay Rs. 125 lakhs with interest accrued thereon from October 30, 1996, till the date of encashment of the aforesaid fixed deposit to the purchasers out of the said amount, 50 per cent. of the amount shall be paid to Shri Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal, karta of Rasiklal Maniklal Dhariwal-Hindu undivided family and the balance 50 per cent. amount to Shri Prakash Rasiklal Dhariwal as a member of Rasiklal Maniklal Dhariwal-Hindu undivided family. These payments shall also be made after deducting at source the tax payable on the interest which has accrued on the original investment made on October 30, 1996. (c) The above payments shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this court or a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. (d) The Appropriate Authority shall duly consider the request being made on behalf of the vendors as well as the purchasers that since the parties are residing at Pune, the aforesaid amounts may be paid to the respective parties through cheques/demand drafts payable at Pune. (iii) Vendors, Shri Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and/or the vendees are entitled to any interest, and if yes, to what extent. That it was due to pendency of the aforesaid review applications that the payment was not made. Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt further submitted that after the review applications were rejected by order dated October 27, 2004 (Appropriate Authority v. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal [2005] 277 ITR 370) the Appropriate Authority has moved the Central Board of Direct Taxes seeking release of the funds under the proper head of the accounts and as soon as such sanction and release order is made, the funds will be paid to the petitioners. The present petition came to be moved on July 1, 2004. When it came up for hearing for the first time on July 7, 2004, notice for final disposal was issued making it returnable on July 23, 2004. On July 23, 2004 a statement on behalf of the respondent was made by Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt that the respondent had already filed an application for review and hence, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, as the review application was not being taken up for hearing due to non-availability of the same Bench, on October 25, 2004 the court made the following order: "The amount payable to the petitioners b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f encashment of the stated fixed deposit and the payment has to be made after deducting tax at source on the interest amount. The court has further directed in para. 8(ii)(c) that the payments have to be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the court or a certified copy of the order, whichever is earlier. The petitioners have categorically stated in the petition that a certified copy of the judgment dated April 12, 2004 was served on the respondent on April 19, 2004. As can be seen from the record, the miscellaneous civil applications were filed by the respondent seeking recall of the part of the directions only on July 7, 2004, but were got circulated for the first time only on September 24, 2004, after an order came to be made in this petition on September 3, 2004. The miscellaneous civil applications came to be filed on July 7, 2004 when the court issued notice in this petition. Even in the order dated October 27, 2004 (Appropriate Authority v. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal [2005] 277 ITR 370), the court has once again taken into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by the present respondent in SCA No. 2171 of 1997 and the following extract has been repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
