GOVIND IMPEX P LIMITED Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition which is under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek quashing of order dt. 24th April, 2001, and the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under S. 276AB of the IT Act (for short the 'Act') r/w S. 278B of the Act. Vide order dt. 16th Oct., 2001, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners the Division Bench of this Court treated this petition as an application under S. 482, Cr.PC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to this petition are that vide registered lease deed dt. 31st May, 1991, petitioners jointly let out front portion of the property bearing No. B 68, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi, to M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank on monthly rental of Rs. 2,50,000 for a period of nine years. Clause 12 of the said lease deed stipulated that the said lease could be renewed for further period of nine years at the option of the tenant bank if the later gave at least three months prior notice expressing his intention for renewal and execute a fresh lease deed. On 4th Dec., 1995, the respondent Appropriate Authority, IT Department, issued a show cause notice to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why petitioners be not prosecuted under Chapter XX C for their failure to submit Form 37 I within 15 days of the draft agreement. According to the Appropriate Authority, the said lease deed was for a period of more than 12 years and therefore, the non submission of Form No. 37 I within 15 days of the agreement was punishable under s. 276AB for violation of S. 269UC of the Act. The petitioners gave reply dt. 12th June, 1996, contending that the lease was not for a period of more than 12 years. However, this contention of the petitioners did not find favour with the respondent who passed the impugned order dt. 24th April, 2001, authorising Sh. V.K. Singhal, Addl. CIT, Appropriate Authority, New Delhi, to file a criminal complaint which eventually was filed and pending in the Court of ACMM, Delhi. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE controversy revolves around the interpretation of the lease deed dt. 31st May, 1991, for ascertaining whether the lease was for a period of more than 12 years in which case such lease will be covered within the meaning of the word 'transfer' as defined in S. 269UA(f) of the Act and make the provisions of Chapter XX C of the Act applicable thereto, Explanation attached to S. 269UA(f) which has direct bearing on this issue, reads as under :