DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of 12 appeals is directed against the judgment dated December 1, 1998 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court interpreting Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') and Rule 48-L and Form 37-I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short, the 'Rules')

(2.) A number of writ petitions had been filed in the High Court by various parties challenging rejection of Form 37-I by the Appropriate Authority. High Court by its impugned judgment allowed the petitions, set aside the orders of the appropriate authority and requiring it to take fresh decision in each of the cases in accordance with law and keeping in view the principles laid by the High Court in its judgment. Aggrieved Appropriate Authority has filed 11 appeals. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (for short, 'DLF') has also filed one appeal. It is aggrieved by that portion of the judgment of the High Court where the High Court said "no objection by the Appropriate Authority based on an agreement for transfer of property which is to be constructed cannot be utilised for procuring a deed for transfer of that property which has been constructed".

(3.) To understand the controversy between the parties and findings arrived at by the High Court, we may examine facts in two cases, one pertaining to DLF and the other to M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (for short, 'Ansal'). Both DLF and Ansal are engaged in the business of developing and dealing in real estate, constructing multi-storey buildings and selling or letting them. Ansal floated a scheme which was widely advertised inviting applications from the public for allotment of apartments. In one of the cases the scheme pertained to apartments in "Celebrity Homes". Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. One Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Kohli and his wife Mrs. Nibha Kohli applied on July 13, 1995 for booking of an apartment. The application was in the form prescribed by Ansal. The application contains details regarding the apartment number, rates, accommodation available and payment plan. Initial deposit was made at the time of booking of the apartment. Building had yet to come up and payment was to be made as construction progressed. A formal agreement incorporating the terms of sale of the apartment was entered into on January 1, 1997. This agreement is in more details but incorporates all the terms of the application for booking of the apartment which was accepted by Ansal. By the time agreement dated January 1, 1997 was entered into, certain payments as per the plan had already been made. In January, 1997 itself, Ansal as transferor and Kohlis as transferee filed Form 37-I before the Appropriate Authority seeking no objection to the registration of the apartment with the registering authority. On March 13/14, 1997 Appropriate Authority sent a notice to Ansal and Kohlis under Section 269-UC(4) pointing out certain defects in Form 37-I and requiring them to remove these defects within 15 days and not later than March 28, 1997 by filing revised Form 37-I. This was replied to by Ansal by their letter dated March 27, 1997. However, by order dated April 28/29, 1997 made under Section 269-UC(4) Appropriate Authority held that Form 37-I had been belatedly filed in contravention of Rule 48-L and was not maintainable. In short, Form 37-I was rejected. It was already held that Form 37-I was defective inasmuch as particulars required in Column 12 of Form 37-I had not been furnished. Ansal challenged the order of the Appropriate Authority by filing writ petitions.