H PRAKASHCHAND CHORDIA Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No, 17590 of 1997, is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner the balance of consideration of Rs. 9,01,500 together with interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 9,01,500.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 17591 of 1997 is filed for issue of a writ of declaration to declare the provisions of Sub-clause (2) of Clause (b) of Section 269UA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing for the discount from the total consideration payable to the transferee of the property under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act ultra vires.

(3.) MR. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for K. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is not open to the appropriate authority to discount the sale consideration payable from the date of the agreement. His submission was that the appropriate authority has to determine the discounted value only from the date on which payment was tendered to the petitioner and ending with the date on which the balance of consideration was payable under the agreement of sale. He referred to the agreement entered into between the petitioner with the transferee and submitted that the balance of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of lodgement of the sale deed for registration with the Registrar of Assurances, and within fifteen days from the date of receipt of consideration, and he referred to the order of the purchase made under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and submitted that the appropriate authority was not justified in discounting the sale consideration from the date of the agreement and according to him discounting is permissible only from the date of tender of payment to the transferor and not earlier. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Skrichand Raheja v. S. C. Prasad, 1995 213 ITR 33, and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Venkata Rao v. Union of India, 1999 236 ITR 895, and both the courts have held that the discounting should be done only from the date of tender of payment by the appropriate authority. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India, 1993 204 ITR 866, and submitted that in preference to the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court, the view expressed by the Bombay High Court should be followed.