9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of sale dated July 16, 1986. The property comprised of a building standing on or about 6,377 sq. mts. of land. It was tenanted and was purchased on the "as is where is" basis. Form No. 37EE was filed by the petitioners and the sellers before the appropriate authority as required under section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act. Form No. 37-I was also filed on October 15, 1986. A certificate under section 269UL(3) of the Income-tax Act dated February 5, 1987, was issued under letter dated February 16, 1987, by the appropriate authority to the effect that the authority had no objection to the transfer of the property to the petitioners for sum of Rs. 30,00,000. Some time thereafter, the petitioners received a notice dated July 14, 1987, under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, not satisfied. Another condition for assumption of jurisdiction under section 269D/ 269C is that the Competent Authority at least prima facie holds that the consideration agreed between the parties is not shown truly in the sale agreement with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor or facilitating the concealment of any income or assets of the transferee or both. In the present case, the Competent Authority has kept the words "and/or" between the two objects of understatement of consideration. This indicated that the Competent Authority had not applied his mind at all as to whether the understatement was with the first object or the second object or both the objects. A similar issue had co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs' application in Form No. 37-1. The circular is clearly applicable in this case. The circulars issued by the Board are binding on the departmental authorities. In the circumstances, it will have to be held even on this score that the proceedings sought to be initiated by the Competent Authority under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the acquisition of the suit property are without jurisdiction.
Shri Dilip Dwarkadas raised a number of issues. In the view the court has taken on the three issues, as stated above, it is not necessary to refer to and/or deal with his other contentions.
In the above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
