TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration for the transfer of the said property. In each of the writ petitions, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, the appropriate authority, the Union of India and the four vendors have been joined as respondents. The petitioners are the prospective purchasers. The suit property is a piece of land measuring 500 sq. yards and bearing No. W/69 situated in W-Block of the residential colony of Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi, within the limits of the Delhi Municipal Corporation along with a 21/2 storey residential house, servants' quarters an garage standing thereon. The relevant facts are not in controversy. By a deed of conveyance dated March 21, 1 964, the suit property was purchased jointly by Harbans Singh, and Jaswant Singh, both in one-half share each. Harbans Singh has expired. He is survived by two sons and two daughters, namely, Pritipal Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Gulshan Kaur and Miss Amarjeet Kaur. Consequent upon the death of Harbans Singh, his 50 per cent. share in the suit property has devolved upon his four children each having acquired 12.5 per cent. share in the property. However, Miss Amarjeet Kaur, the fourth daughter, has relinquished her share in favour of her b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs sixty-six thousand and eight hundred only). (d) 16.67 per cent. share of Miss Gulshan Kaur shall be purchased by Miss Neha Gupta, minor daughter of Shri Surinder Gupta, through her father and natural guardian, for the total consideration of Rs. 6,66,800 (rupees six lakhs sixty-six thousand and eight hundred only)." " And whereas the vendors have agreed to sell and transfer their individual shares in the property, as specified hereinabove, in favour of the respective purchasers, by a single composite sale deed covering all five individual and separate transactions. Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows : 2. That the sale shall be a composite transaction relating to the respective shares of the vendors in favour of the respective purchasers as set out hereinabove. 3. That the aggregate price of the entire property comprising of all the share of the vendors is Rs. 40,00,000 (rupees forty lakhs only). The said price shall be payable as follows : (i) Shri Surinder Gupta shall pay to Shri Jaswant Singh in respect of his 25 per cent. share a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs only). (ii) Mrs. Minakshi Gupta shall pay to Shri Jaswant Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Gupta shall pay to Shri Jaswant Singh Rs. 2,75,000 (rupees two lakhs seventy-five thousand only). (c) Surinder Gupta, Hindu undivided family, shall pay to Shri Pritipal Singh Rs. 1,83,260 (rupees one lakh eighty-three thousand And two hundred sixty only). (d) Miss Sumina Gupta shall pay to Shri Gurcharan Singh Rs. 1,83,370 (rupees one lakh eighty-three thousand three hundred and seventy only). (e) Miss Neha Gupta shall pay to Miss Gulshan Kaur Rs. 1,83,370 (rupees one lakh eighty-three thousand and three hundred seventy only)." The gist of the transactions, as disclosed by the agreement to sell is placed in a tabulated form as under : Vendor Share in property Purchaser Consideration (Rs.) Jaswant Singh 25 per. cent. Surinder Gupta 10,00,000 Jaswant Singh 25 per cent. Minakshi Gupta 10,00,000 Pritipal Singh 16.66 per cent. Surinder Gupta, HUF 6,66,400 Gurcharan Singh 16.67 per cent. Sumina Gupta 6,66,800 Gulshan Kaur 16.67 per cent. Neha Gupta 6,66,800 Total 100 per cent. 40,00,000 The four vendors and the five vendees filed a joint statement of transfer of immovable property to be furnished to the appropriate authority under section 269UC in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share in the property. After April 8, 1987, they were individual owners of definite shares in the property. Each one could deal with only his respective share and he cannot deal with the share of another. The property which so falls to the share of each individual, will come definitely within the definition of the words ' immovable property '. Such a sharer was entitled to transfer his immovable property to a third person. Merely because a plurality of such individual owners joined together to enter into one single agreement to transfer their respective shares in favour of one or more persons, that would not make any difference to the main issue that what each transferred was his definite share of the property. It was not in dispute that the value of each such share was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Section 269UD was not, therefore, applicable. The order of acquisition was liable to b quashed. " Yet another decision of the Madras High Court in N. C. Rangesh v. Inspector-General of Registration [1991] 189 ITR 270 has been brought to our notice. It was in the context of a circular issued by IGR to the effect that, in a case where undivided interest in immovable property is sold, a certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty. The question whether they divided that property or not is not a material question. In law each one of them had half the right in the property that they gifted to their brother. They were holding that property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Hence, they made the gift as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants Each one must be held to have made a gift of her share 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. " CIT v. T. V. Suresh Chandran [1980] 121 ITR 985 (Ker) was a case under section 269C of the Income-tax Act. The transferors were co-owners having inherited the property from ancestors. They transferred the property t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The agreement entered into between the parties states all the relevant facts including the factum of partition. The actual property which has fallen in partition to the share of each of the vendors is mentioned. The agreement recites separately the consideration payable to each of the vendors by each of the prospective vendees. Each of the vendors could have entered into a separate agreement to sell. However, they have entered into only one agreement. The correctness of the facts stated in the agreement is not disputed by the respondents nor could it have been. The respondents could not have in law treated the several different transactions evidenced by the agreement as one and then proceeded to apply the provisions of section 269UD of the Act. In the opinion of this court, though there is one agreement to sell, it must be deemed that there are four transactions of immovable property entered into by four owners in favour of five vendees. It is only the transaction entered into by Jaswant Singh in favour of Surinder Gupta and Minakshi Gupta alienating his 50 per cent. share in the property for a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs (25 per cent. each for Rs. 10 lakhs) which could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to have been submitted only by the vendor, Jaswant Singh, as regards the 50 per cent. share of the property, owned by him and the agreement entered into by him with Surinder Gupta and Smt. Minakshi Gupta. The remaining part of the Form No. 37-I shall be treated as redundant. The statement shall be deemed to have been submitted on the date of signing of this judgment. Thereafter, if the appropriate authority considers it fit, it may issue a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner, Jaswant Singh, and his vendees to show cause why an order for compulsory purchase of the property in question should not be made under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 269UD and give a reasonable opportunity to the persons noticed to show cause against such an order being made. Having afforded such an opportunity if the appropriate authority considers it fit, it may hold an enquiry even though summary in nature and may pass an order for compulsory purchase by the Central Government of the property in question under section 269UD(1). The appropriate authority will have to decide whether an enquiry is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case after A the show-cause notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
