TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the transferor and the transferee in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) at least four months before intended date of transfer. Both the transferor and the transferee have got a legal obligation to file with the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department the particulars of such agreement in Form No. 37-I prescribed und rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, within the statutory time limit prescribed thereunder. (b) Accused Nos. I and 2 are the owners of the landed property comprised TS No. 23, Block No. 30 of Kottur village bearing Corporation Door No. 7, 1st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai measuring an extent of 13,642 sq. ft. the value of which exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore, the above property falls within the jurisdiction of the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34, for the purpose of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (c) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 by two separate sale deeds, dated March 28, 2002, have sold the above mentioned property in favour of accused No. 3 represented by accused No. 4 herein for a total consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. Accused No. 1 by the registered sale deed of Rs. 30 la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 which constitutes an offence under section 276AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (h) It is further alleged in the complaint that under section 269UL(2) no person has got any right to transfer any immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs without obtaining a no objection certificate from the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 by transferring the said property by two registered sale deeds without obtaining no-objection certificate as required under section 269UL(2) of the Act to accused No. 3 and thereby contravened section 269UL(2) of the Act, which is punishable under section 276AB of the Act. (i) Accused No. 4 representing accused N 3 and signing sale deeds on behalf of accused No.3 is a person interested in the above transaction and therefore, he is liable for the commission of the offences along with accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3. A complaint was filed after sending a show-cause notice and considering the reply received from the accused and the same was taken on file for the aforesaid offences against the accused. 4. Being aggrieved by that, accused No. 1/petitioner herein has come before this court. 5. Heard both. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atbhai Shah [2001] 248 ITR 342. In the said decision, the apex court has laid down as under (page 348): "What, in our opinion, therefore, has to be seen for the purposes of attracting Chapter XX-C is: what is the property which is the subject matter of transfer and what is the apparent consideration for such transfer. This has to be seen in a real light with due regard to the object of the Chapter and not in an artificial or technical manner. If the apparent consideration for the transfer is more than the limit prescribed for the relevant area under rule 48K, what has then to be seen is whether the apparent consideration for the property is less than the market value thereof by 15 per cent. or more. If so, the notice for pre-emptivë purchase can be issued and it is then for the parties to the transaction to satisfy the appropriate authority that the apparent consideration is the real consideration for the transfer. Now, in the present case, the said agreement is for the sale of the said immovable property. That the equal shares of the second and third respondents therein are to be transferred to the first respondent is a necessary incident of such sale. The parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 the property conveyed was a single unit measuring a total area of 13,642 sq. ft. as mentioned in schedule A or each sale deed. Therefore, the market value of the property as a single unit which was transferred by the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the accused No. 3 was Rs. 30 lakhs. 15. In paragraph 11 also similar averments have been made. Thus, it could be seen that the complaint proceeds on the footing that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the entire landed property measuring an extent of 13,642 sq. ft. comprised in T. S. No. 23, Block No 30 of Kottur Village bearing Corporation Door No. 7, 1st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar Adyar, Chennai-20. But at the same time, in the other paragraphs of the complaint, the complainant has stated that accused No. 1 by the registered sale deed No. 773 of 2002 dated March 28, 2002 has conveyed his undivided right, title and interest having a proportionate share 500/22,000 of 13,642 sq. ft. of the entire landed property. Similarly, it is stated that accused No. 2 on the same date, on March 28, 2002 by registered sale deed No. 774 of 2002 has transferred her undivided right, title and interest having a proportionate share 500/22,000 of 13,642 sq. ft.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their property rights and each co-owner was to be paid an amount of consideration which is less than the amount specified, i.e., each co-owner-transferor will get less than Rs. 25 lakhs as per the agreement and the facts of which are as follows: 19. On August 12, 1995 the second and third respondents entered into an agreement to sell to the first respondent immovable property situated in Ahmedabad for the sum of Rs. 47 lakhs. The Appropriate Authority of the Revenue came to the conclusion that the apparent consideration in respect of the said immovable property under the said agreement was less than the market value thereof by 15 per cent, or more. Accordingly, a notice dated November 6, 1995, was issued to the respondents to show cause why the said immovable property should not be subjected to preemptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the lncome-tax Act, 1961. The respondents showed cause, but the order of preemptive purchase was made by the Appropriate Authority. This order was challenged a the writ-petition. 20. Before the High Court, it was contended that what had been transferred by the second and third respondents to the first respondent were their equal half shares in....