9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond instalment to be paid by March 10, 1996 (Rs. 50 lakhs) and the third and final instalment to be paid at the time of execution of the conveyance on or before April 30, 1996 (Rs. 115 lakhs). In accordance with the aforesaid agreement, the purchasers paid Rs. 75 lakhs on January 25, 1996 and another instalment of Rs. 50 lakhs on March 30, 1996, i.e., total amount of Rs. 125 lakhs was paid by the purchasers to the vendors on the aforesaid dates. When the parties submitted Form No. 37-I under section 269UC of the Act on February 2, 1996, the order of purchase dated May 24, 1996 came to be passed by the Appropriate Authority under section 269UD. When that order came to be challenged, this court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Appropriate Authority. On September 30, 1996, the order of purchase came to be passed by the Appropriate Authority, which came to be challenged in Special Civil Applications Nos. 8606 of 1996, 2171 and 3399 of 1997 by the vendors, the purchasers and another party claiming to be interested in the property. The petitions came to be opposed by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply of the Appropriate Authority in Special Civil Applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Department in the case of any dispute by any party, and the said party, therefore, expressed the desire to withdraw Special Civil Application No. 3399 of 1997 in view of the aforesaid arrangement. Mr. Kaji, learned counsel for the vendors, also stated that the vendors had never refused to hand over possession off the property to the Income-tax Department and in any view of the matter, they will now hand over the possession of the property to the Department within ten days. Thereafter, Mr. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, submitted that since a substantial amount of interest which has accrued on the amount of Rs. 115 lakhs and Rs. 125 lakhs is to be paid over to the vendors and the purchasers, the Department will have to deduct the income-tax at source before paying over the amount of interest to the respective parties. It was in view of the aforesaid submissions that the court found that the challenges raised in the petition were not required to be examined and, therefore, the petitions were disposed of by holding that the order of purchase dated September 13, 1996 of the Appropriate Authority stands and the Income-tax Department may act upon the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity in Special Civil Application No. 2171 of 1997, it was stated that the consideration amount has been deposited in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank by the Appropriate Authority and the interest at bank rate accrued on this amount will be given along with the consideration to both the parties (i.e., to the vendors and the purchasers). It is submitted that Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, who had appeared in the main petitions, had, therefore, stated that, since the substantial amounts of interest which has accrued on the amount of Rs. 115 lakhs and Rs. 125 lakhs are to be paid over to the vendors and the purchasers, respectively, the Department will have to deduct the income-tax at source before paying over the amounts of interest to the respective parties. (iii) On the merits, it is submitted that the interpretation sought to be placed by the Appropriate Authority on the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 269UG is erroneous and that even if two views are possible, the review applications are not the appropriate proceedings for having rehearing of the matter which is permissible only in appeal. Reliance has been placed on several decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a scheduled bank on October 30, 1996 has grown to Rs. 5.34 crores (Rs. 5,34,81,261, to be precise) as on February 7, 2004 and that the said amount has again been invested in fixed deposit, learned counsel for the vendors as well as the purchasers had given up their challenge to the purchase order if they were paid the entire amount of consideration with interest accrued thereon from October 30, 1996, i.e., the date on which the amounts were invested in fixed deposit by the Appropriate Authority. In our opinion, therefore, the Appropriate Authority having specifically taken up the stand in the affidavit as aforesaid, and having not raised any such contention which is now sought to be raised in the review applications, these review applications are not required to be entertained on the merits. As regards the contention of learned standing counsel for the Revenue that a concession of a counsel which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions, cannot bind the party, the argument is misconceived. The provisions of sub-section (4) of section 269UG, read as under: "269UG. Payment or deposit of consideration.-... (4) Where any amount of consideration has been deposited with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit-in-reply quoted hereinabove. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the stand of the Appropriate Authority as reflected in the affidavit and of learned standing counsel as taken at the hearing is in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 269UG. Sub-section (1) of section 269UG provides that the amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269UF shall be tendered to the person/s entitled thereto, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the immovable property concerned becomes vested in the Central Government under sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (6) of section 269UE. Sub-section (1) of section 269UH provides for consequences of failure on the part of the Central Government to tender or deposit such payment within the aforesaid specified period. Sub-section (2) of section 269UG provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of consideration amongst the persons claiming to be entitled thereto, the Central Government shall deposit with the Appropriate Authority the amount of consideration required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, Mr. Kaji, learned counsel for the vendors, has invited our attention to several letters which were written by the vendors to the Department calling upon the Department to take over possession of the properties. Learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that such letters were received by the Department but it is stated that it was on account of pendency of the petitions challenging the order of purchase that possession of the property was not taken over. In this view of the matter, the Department is not justified in refusing to pay interest on the amount of consideration. In Hotel Mardias Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 94, another Division Bench of this court has already taken the view that, even if possession of the property is not handed over, the vendors cannot be deprived of the right to get the possession. In this view of the matter also, we do not find any compelling ground for review of our judgment dated April 12, 2004 disposing of Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 2004 and two cognate petitions. The Department shall pay the amounts of interest which are withheld so far, along with the interest accrued thereon by December 15, 2004. Subject to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
