9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the income-tax authorities their source of funds for the acquisition of the property and the construction of the building thereon. The petitioners entered into an agreement, exhibit P-3, dated October 8, 1991, with one A. A. Joseph to sell the 15.5 cents of land and the building thereon for a consideration of Rs. 12.75 lakhs. On getting information about this agreement, the first respondent-Income-tax Officer queried by his communication exhibit P-4, whether the proposal to transfer the property had been communicated to the appropriate authority under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The petitioners, replied by their letter exhibit P-5 that the agreement to sell related to their separate rights in the propertie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 48K speaks of the transfer of immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. Immovable property is defined for the purposes of this Chapter in section 269UA(d) read with the Explanation as meaning, inter alia, any land, or any building or part of a building including any rights therein. The petitioners are separate owners of parcels of the land, and co-owners of the building with an equal share therein (vide exhibit P-6). There is no controversy of these facts. What they are seeking to convey is their separate right in the land and the building, which constitutes immovable property under section 269UA(d). The consideration for the sale of the right of each one of them does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. The immovable property dealt with by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs came within the definition of "immovable property", he was entitled to transfer his share to third persons and, therefore, Chapter XX-C was inapplicable, though the plurality of co-owners joined together to execute a single document for the purpose of convenience. This decision was followed by Bakthavatsalam J., in Rangesh's case [1991] 189 ITR 270 (Mad) with the ratio that the sale of an undivided interest in land for a value of less than Rs. 10 lakhs was not hit by Chapter XX-C. The direction contained in exhibit P-8 that the petitioners should approach the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Act is not, therefore, valid in law. The original petition is allowed and exhibit P-8 is quashed. Any application for a clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
