TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order. To understand and appreciate the controversy raised in the applications, it would be necessary to note a few background facts. Respondent No. 1, a builder (hereinafter referred to as "the vendor") had entered into an agreement dated June 25, 1991, with the petitioners (herein after referred to as "the vendees") for the sale of residential flat No. 2 on the fourth floor of the multistoreyed building known as Neelgiri Apartments, situated at 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The vendor and the vendees filed a statement in Form No. 37-1 prescribed under rule 48-L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and as required under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to deliver to them possession of the property but having failed to get any response thereto, they filed an application (C. M. No. 9134 of 2001), seeking a direction to the appropriate authority to accept Rs. 23.10 lakhs, the amount paid by it to the vendor and to hand over physical possession of the property to them. The application was disposed of by this court on October 5, 2001, with the following order: "Heard. On payment of the balance apparent consideration to the authorities within two weeks from today, possession of the property in question shall be handed over to the vendee, the petitioner in the writ petition. If the Department has any claim regarding interest so far as the vendor is concerned, it is open to it to take action ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....priate authority's appeal, it would appear that the only issue urged and decided by the apex court was with regard to the applicability of section 269UH on the facts in hand and the court held that the section was clearly attracted. Therefore, the said order hardly leaves any room for doubt that on account of failure on the part of the Central Government to tender/pay a part of the consideration, required to be tendered/paid to the vendor within the specified period, the purchase order stood abrogated and the property in question re-vested in the vendor. In the event of such a situation, sub-section (2) of section 269UH provides that the appropriate authority is to make, soon thereafter, a declaration to that effect and serve a copy of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o doubt its bona fides. It was acting in the discharge of its statutory duties and could not be blamed for passing order for pre-emptive purchase of the property by the Central Government. Merely because its order was ultimately set aside, it cannot be said that its action was mala fide. So far as the vendor is concerned, it again cannot be held liable for payment of any interest to the appropriate authority inasmuch as it had to receive total consideration for the property in terms of the agreement to sell dated June 25, 1991. Since as per sub-section (2) of section 269UE, the vendor had to surrender or deliver possession of the property to the appropriate authority and no complaint in this respect was made by the appropriate authority war....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant to call upon the vendees to pay interest to the appropriate authority. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prayer of the appropriate authority (C. M. No. 12908 of 2001) for direction to the vendor or the vendees to pay interest cannot be granted. As regards the apprehension of the vendor that the vendees are trying to take possession of the property in question without paying the dues, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same inasmuch as the order passed under section 269UD(1) having been declared as abrogated and the property having re-vested in the vendor, in terms of section 269UH, there is no impediment left in now giving full effect to the agreement to sell dated June 25, 1991. However, to avo....