MEGSONS EXPORTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition Is to the order dated 15th March 1990 whereby the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act bad not granted penaission to the petition which 'he be has sought by an application in form 37-1 of the Act.

(2.) ReapondentNo.4istbe owner of the property bearing No.D/41. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. It bad entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of the petitioner. Anapplication was filed on 31st January 1990 in form 37-1 in accordaice with the provisions of Section 269 UG. The Appropriate Authority by the impugned order did not grant the 'No Objection Certificate" nor did it exercise the right of pre-emptive purchase. It came to the canculsion that the agreement which has been entered into by the owner with the proposed transferee had resulted in the creation of certain rights in favour of the transferee in accordance with the provision of Section S3-A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Appropriate Authority possession of the property bad been handed over to the transferee and there had been a part performance of the contract and the letter and intent of the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act bad been violated According to thi Appropriate Authority there had been a breach committed of this Chapter and prosecution could be initiated He further came to the conclusion that the consideration shown was Rs. 24 lacs, out of which 22 lacs have already been paid and be concluded that the pre-emptive right to purchase had been defeated by the p.irties.

(3.) While challenging the aforesaid decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner places on the decision in Tanvi Trading & Credits Pft. Ltd. 4 Other*, v. Appropriate Authority & Others, 188 I.T.R. 623. The provisions of Sw- tiong 262 (JC, 269 UO and 269 UL were considered by a Division Bench of tbb Court and-it was inter alia held that when an application under Section 269 UO it filed, the Appropriate Authority can either buy the property or isue a 'No objection Certificate'. No other course was open to the Appropriate Authority. The decision in Tanvi Trading & Credits (supra) was followed by another Beneb of this Court in the case of SatwaM Narang v. Appropriate Authority, 188 I.T.R. 656 What is of importance however, is that the Department filed an appeal against the first decision of this Court and on 23rd April, 1991 the Spreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, passed the following orders: -