9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions contained section 269UC of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the alienation of the property made under one deed by several co-owners, the value of which exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs but the value of the co-owners does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that, as the property is one and it is conveyed under one deed, even though it is owned by several persons, the provisions of Chapter XXC and specially section 269UC of the Income-tax Act are attracted. Section 269UC of the Act which is relevant for our purpose reads thus : " 269UC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882 ), or in any other law for the time being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect of overriding the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or any other law for the time being in force as it opens with the non obstante clause, this overriding is limited to the purpose stated in that section itself and nothing beyond that. As per the aforesaid provisions, the transfer of an immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs as prescribed by the aforesaid rule 48K cannot at all be effected without furnishing the agreement of sale in writing in the form of a statement as prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 269UC of the Act to the authority concerned by the alienor and the alienee three months before the intended date of transfer. The point for consideration is that when an immovable property owned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-owners even when all of them together sell the property and convey the title under one deed. It is not in dispute in this case that the respondents had divided the property in question before the alienation in question. After the division, they have agreed to sell the property to another person under one sale deed. The sale deed so executed resulted in transferring the property of each co-owner to the vendee. The transferee will get the title of each co-owner. The value of the share of each co-owner does not exceed rupees ten lakhs. As such, the provisions of section 269UC of the Act are not attracted. The facts involved in K. V. Kishore's case [1991] 189 ITR 264 (Mad) were similar to the one on hand. In that case also it was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be understood only as an agreement to convey the respective undivided share of respondents Nos. 4 to 8. It is not in dispute that the value of each such share is less than Rs. 10,00,000. The recitals in the agreement in more than one place refer to the fact that what is sold, is the individual undivided share in the property. Consequently, the impugned order made under Chapter XXC of the Act taking the total consideration, the collective shares, cannot be sustained. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. No costs." In CGT v. R. Valsala Amma [1971] 82 ITR 828 (SC), a similar question arose under the Gift-tax Act. In that case, two sisters being co-owners of the property gifted the same to another person under one gift deed. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hare of the property though the gift is made through one single document. It is surprising that the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal should have ever thought that the gift in question was by an association or by a body of individuals. The Gift-tax Act did not change the general law relating to the rights of property. It merely sought to tax a gift of the property owned by a person. As mentioned earlier the property with which we are concerned in this case is a property owned by two persons as tenants-in-common, each one having a definite share. In our opinion, the High Court was absolutely right in answering the question referred to it in favour of the assessee. Civil Appeal No. 1436/(NT) of 1971 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Acts. (2) The application for the certificate required under sub-section (1) shall be made by the person referred to in that sub-section and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in a case where the person referred to in that sub-section is any such institution, association or body, or belongs to any such class of institutions, associations or bodies, as the Board may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette. " In Lokeswari's case [1992] 196 ITR 501 (Mad), one K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar was the owner of the property. On his death, it devolved upon his heirs. Thus, each heir was entitled to a particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
