TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and the balance of Rs. 15,37,260/- was to be paid in three equal installments. The parties to the said agreement furnished Form No.37- I on 30th November, 1989 signed by the transferor and the petitioner disclosing total apparent consideration as Rs. 25,62,100/-. On the basis of such declaration filed, an order of purchase was passed on 25th January, 1990. Such order was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No.879 of 1990. This Court granted ad-interim stay on 09.02.1990. The order passed on the said date read as under:- "Issue notice to respondent nos.2 and 4 through registered post directing them to show cause as to why any appropriate direction be not issued at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites must be filed by 13th February, 1990, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. A counter affidavit should also be filed on behalf of the Income Tax Department. The learned Standing Counsel shall keep the records showing reasons, which have been recorded for an action under Section 269 U.D. of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are informed that Section 269 U.D. is under consideration by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (6) of section 269UE. Where there is failure on the part of the Central Government to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 269UG or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) thereof, then the order made under sub-section (1) of section 269UD would stand abrogated and the immovable property would stand revested in the transferor after the expiry of the said period. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that the consideration money, as provided under section 269 UF of the Act, is payable to the transferor. In the case in hand by an interim order of this Court dated 9.2.90 it has been directed that the income-tax authorities shall not be required to pay either to the seller or to the purchaser the amount of purchase price of the property. The said stay order stood vacated on 03.12.1990. The Department has paid a sum of Rs. 15,37,260 [sic Rs. 25, 61,560] to the transferor and, therefore, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of Mr. Shahi that there has been any infraction of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 269UG. In this view of the matter, the question of revesting of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the petitioner is entitled to re-vesting of the property. In reply to the supplementary affidavit filed on 10^th April, 1996, it was, inter alia, stated that initial possession of the property on 7th Floor of Ashiana Plaza at Budh Marg, Patna, was given to the Department on 21.12.1990 and no final possession of the property appears to have been given. It is also pointed out that total consideration payable as per Form 37-I amounts to Rs. 25,62,100/-. It is also pointed out that the builder was entitled to extra cost on completion of the extra work which was not done by the vendor. In any case, the same cannot be treated as consideration money. The provisions which are relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition are as under:- "269UB.- (1) The Central Government may, by order, publish in the Official Gazette.- (a) constitute as many appropriate authorities, as it thinks fit, to perform the functions of an appropriate authority under this Chapter ; and (b) define the local limits within which the appropriate authorities shall perform their functions under this Chapter. 269UD. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub- sections ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolation of the principles of natural justice in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam's case (supra). On a clarification petition, the Supreme Court clarified that the period of two months referred in Section 269 UD (1) shall be reckoned with reference to date of disposal of each of such pending matters either before this Court or before the High Court as the case may be. However, it was clarified whereby if stay order inhibiting the authorities from taking further proceedings are vacated, the period referred to in the proviso to Section 269- UD (1) shall be reckoned with reference to the date of such vacating of the stay orders. The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of purchase passed by the appropriate authority on 27th September, 1995 is beyond the period prescribed by law, i.e. after the period of two months after end of the month under which the statement under Form 37-I was submitted as the order vacating the order of stay was passed on 3rd December, 1990. We do not find any merit in the said argument. An order of purchase was already passed on 25th January, 1990 in terms of Section 269 UD (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n objection was raised by the transferor in respect of short payment, but the transferor has not challenged the order of the appropriate authority. The order of appropriate authority is final qua the transferor. Once the apparent consideration as per the agreement is Rs. 25,62,100/- is as in Form 37- I, therefore, the price to be paid is the agreed price. The extra cost for the Kota stone has not been disputed by the transferor after the order was passed by the appropriate authority on 27th September, 1995. Thus, the transferee cannot make any grievance in respect to that payment as payment was not made to it. The question which has been referred to the Larger Bench whether the payment of Rs. 25,61,560/-made by the Revenue was required to be paid to the transferee on account of the fact that the entire sale consideration was paid to the transferor, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to re-vesting of the property. We do not find any merit in the argument as well. In the detailed show cause filed by the petitioner before the appropriate authority, there was no objection raised that the amount paid by the petitioner was required to be paid by the Revenue to the petitioner or ....