1995 (5) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Court Dismisses Challenge to Jurisdiction on Form 37-I Processing; Upholds Authority's Actions

The court dismissed the petition challenging the jurisdiction of respondents to process Form No. 37-I without the petitioner's agreement. It rejected the ... Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government Issues:1. Jurisdiction of respondents to process Form No. 37-I without petitioner's agreement.2. Issuance of prohibition writ against respondents.3. Quashing of any order to issue a no-objection certificate.4. Direction to not issue a no-objection certificate.5. Quashing of any issued no-objection certificate.6. Grant of further relief and costs.Analysis:The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the jurisdiction of respondents 1 to 3 to process Form No. 37-I without their agreement. Form No. 37-I is filed under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules and pertains to the transfer of immovable property under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, as a transferor, had entered into agreements for the property in question with different parties. A suit for specific performance was filed by a previous party, J. K. Rajgarhia, against the petitioner. The current dispute arose from an agreement with the 4th respondent, who claimed compliance with the terms and submitted Form No. 37-I with necessary documents. The petitioner contended that the appropriate authority should not act on the form without hearing them. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition, stating that there was no basis to challenge the actions of the appropriate authority, which is presumed to act in accordance with the law.The petitioner also requested the court to issue a prohibition writ against respondents 1 to 3, restraining them from proceeding with the issuance of a no-objection certificate. Additionally, the petitioner sought the quashing of any order or decision made by the respondents regarding the issuance of the certificate. The court, however, did not find grounds to support the petitioner's claims. It emphasized that every authority is presumed to act lawfully, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, indicating that the petitioner's apprehensions of adverse orders were unfounded.Furthermore, the petitioner urged the court to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to issue any no-objection certificate under section 269UC(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of mandamus or appropriate order. The court, after evaluating the arguments, concluded that there was no justification for such a direction. It reiterated that authorities are expected to act within the bounds of the law, and the petitioner's concerns lacked substantial evidence to warrant intervention by the court. Therefore, the court dismissed this aspect of the petition as well.In addition to the above requests, the petitioner asked for the quashing of any already issued no-objection certificate and sought further relief deemed fit by the court, along with costs. The court, after thorough consideration, found no legal basis to grant the requested reliefs. It emphasized the presumption of regularity in the actions of authorities and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in its entirety, denying the requested reliefs and costs to the petitioner.