TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The shares of two of the petitioners Kalyankumar and Senthilkumar, were 1/33 each of the value of Rs. 1,21,212. The share of the petitioner Loganayaki was 4/33 and was of the value of Rs. 4,84,850. The share of the petitioner Parvathavardhini was 3/33 of the value of Rs. 3,63,636. The share of Shanmuganathan was 11/33 and was of the value of Rs. 13,33,333. The share of the petitioner Kanakasabapathy was 13/33 and was of the value of Rs. 15,75,707. The shares of these parties had been declared by the order of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in a partition suit to which the petitioners were parties. Thus, the agreement entered into by all of them was in effect, an agreement entered into by each one of them with the proposed transferee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to that sale is not of any consequence, as by that time, the respective shares in the property had been declared and defined as that of co-owners. The order of the authority in so far as they are concerned must be set aside and is set aside. So far as the shares of Shanmuganathan and Kanagasabapathy are concerned, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that tendering of the amounts in respect of those shares, even as admitted in respect of other shares, was not made in accordance with section 269UG of the Income-tax Act. The amount tendered to them by cheque on the 26th was not the whole of the amount required to be paid to them and consequently they refused to receive those cheques. It is the case of the Revenue that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res was less than Rs. 10,00,000, their shares could not have been compulsorily acquired by the authority under Chapter XX-C. The payment of money to them and the acceptance thereof cannot be held against those petitioners, as such, payment was only a consequence of the order passed by the authority. If the order is found to be one without jurisdiction, that order can be set aside at the instance of those petitioners provided they had approached the court in proper time. This writ petition was filed within a short time after possession was taken. Those petitioners by their act of receiving the money could not and did not confer jurisdiction on the authority to acquire their shares in the manner sought to be done under the impugned order. ....