High Court Upholds Interpretation of "Any Person" in Section 230A

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Income-tax Officer to issue a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act for the registration of a deed of conveyance. The court upheld the interpretation that "any person" in section 230A refers only to the transferor and not the transferee, despite acknowledging conflicting views from other High Courts. The judgment emphasized the importance of obtaining the certificate for registration to protect revenue interests and ensure accountability in property transactions. The court suggested that differing views on the matter could be considered on appeal to the Division Bench.

---

---

Issues:
1. Requirement of a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act for registration of a deed of conveyance.
2. Dispute regarding the eligibility of the transferee to apply for the certificate under section 230A.
3. Conflict between the decisions of different High Courts on the interpretation of "any person" in section 230A.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a petition where the petitioner, a purchaser of an immovable property, sought a mandamus to direct the Income-tax Officer to issue a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act for the registration of a deed of conveyance. The petitioner had undertaken to pay all taxes liable to be paid by the seller, who failed to obtain the required certificate. The Income-tax Officer refused to grant the certificate, stating that the applicant (transferee) is not the vendor. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief in this matter.

The High Court referred to previous decisions, including one by Puttaswamy J., which held that "any person" in section 230A refers only to the transferor and not the transferee. However, another decision by Varadarajan J. in the Madras High Court took the view that the transferee also has the right to apply for the certificate, based on the circumstances of the case. The court acknowledged the conflict in interpretations but emphasized the practical necessity of obtaining the certificate for registration.

The court recognized the importance of the legislative intent behind section 230A, which aims to protect revenue interests and ensure accountability for funds used in property purchases. Despite expressing a need for a more liberal view in interpreting fiscal statutes, the court felt bound by the precedent set by its previous decision. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition but noted that an appeal to the Division Bench could consider the differing views expressed on the matter.

In summary, the judgment highlights the requirement of a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act for registration, the dispute over the eligibility of the transferee to apply for the certificate, and the conflicting interpretations by different High Courts. The court upheld the previous decision restricting the application to the transferor but acknowledged the need for a more lenient approach in certain cases involving fiscal statutes.

---