9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till December 3, 1992 when the petitioner was paid apparent consideration of Rs. 30,56,218 after certain deductions. The claim is made under subsection (4) of section 269UG of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The petitioner was the owner of the property situated at Ahmedabad for which the petitioner executed an agreement to sell on May 12, 1992, for a sum of Rs. 47,34,400. The petitioner filed the form under section 269UC on May 25, 1992 and the appropriate authority at Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 herein, passed the order under section 269UD(1) for acquiring the property in question after deducting Rs. 71,491 by way of discount for accelerated payment. On August 5, 1992, the appropriate authority demanded possession and on A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. On October 22, 1992, Ramdulara R. Chauhan withdrew the suit filed by him regarding tenancy rights. Between October 23, 1992 and November 30, 1992, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority from time to time for paying over the apparent consideration to the petitioner. The appropriate authority made the following payments:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Amount Rs. Payee ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9,46,880 Ami Officers' Association (return of earnest money deposit to the intending p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the petition has reached hearing today, Mr. Tushar P. Hemani, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for reliefs (A) and (B) and also fairly states that the question of discounting has been decided against the assessees by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhai J Patel v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 182. Hence, learned counsel does not press prayer (C)(i). Learned counsel has, however, seriously pressed the prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18 per cent, on Rs. 46,46,400 from July 31, 1992 till December 3, 1992 and further interest on such interest. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in payment. Sub-section (4) of section 269UG of the Act reads as under:- "269UG. Payment or deposit of consideration.-... (4) Where any amount of consideration has been deposited with the appropriate authority under this section, the appropriate authority may, either of its own motion or on an application made by or on behalf of any person interested or claiming to be interested in such amount, order the same to be invested in such Government or other securities as it may think proper, and may direct the interest or other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such manner as will, in its opinion, give the parties interested therein the same benefits therefrom as they might have had from the immovable propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue that since the petitioner had not made application for investment and since the amount was not invested, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the aforesaid provision. As regards the contention that the petitioner had passed receipt dated December 3, 1992 accepting the amount of apparent consideration in full and final settlement, it is required to be noted that the amount of apparent consideration to be received by the petitioner after deducting the amounts paid to Ami Officers' Association and to the State Bank of India was a substantial amount of Rs. 30,56,218. If the petitioner had not passed such receipt, the appropriate authority would not have paid the petitioner the said amount and the petitioner would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 1,1992 till November 30, 1992 on the amount of Rs. 30,56,218. Since the petitioner would retain the amount of interest with himself, we are not inclined to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner any interest on the other two amounts which the appropriate authority was required to pay, and did pay, to the two other parties, i.e., the refund of earnest money to the intending transferee-Ami Officers' Association and the amount paid by the appropriate authority to the State Bank of India against the outstanding amount of the loan for which the petitioner had stood as a guarantor. The respondents shall, therefore, pay the petitioner interest on the amount of Rs. 30,56,218 for the period from September 1,1992 to November 30,1992. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
