Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could reject the statement in Form No. 37-I and declare it void on the ground that the transfer had already taken place before filing, instead of confining itself to the statutory options of pre-emptive purchase or issuance of a no objection certificate.
Analysis: Section 269UC requires an agreement for transfer to be furnished in the prescribed form within the statutory time, but the authority's role under Chapter XX-C is limited to deciding whether the Union of India should purchase the property or whether a no objection certificate should be issued. The authority has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the legality of the transfer or to treat the statement as void merely because it considered the transfer to have been completed before filing. The settled judicial position, consistently followed, is that the statutory scheme does not confer any broader power of invalidation on the appropriate authority.
Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the Form No. 37-I statement and treating it as void could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appropriate authority cannot declare a transfer void or go beyond the statutory choice of pre-emptive purchase or issuance of a no objection certificate.