KAMLA KHUSHALDAS TECKCHANDANI Vs. O D MOHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 29th August, 1989 passed by the appropriate authority (I.T. Department) Bombay under sub section (1) of section 269 UD of the Income tax Act 1961. By that order the appropriate authority in exercise of its power under sub section (1) of section 269 UD of the Income tax Act ordered the purchase of the immovable property of the petitioner by the Central Government.

(2.) AT the out set, it may be pointed out that in this petition, the entire order dated 29th August, 1989 has not been challenged, but challenge has been restricted only to that part of the order whereby the amount of apparent consideration has been fixed at Rs.21,14,684/ .

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that discounting of the amount of Rs.35,316/ by the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of the Income tax Act. He submits that, according to the agreement between the parties, the petitioner was to get balance amount of consideration within 15 days from the date on which the appropriate authority grants no objection. In the submission of the learned counsel, according to the provisions of the Income tax Act, as it stood then, the appropriate authority after application in form No.37 1 has been submitted can make an order for compulsory purchase within a period of two months and thereafter, the amount of apparent consideration is to be tendered by the government to the transferee within a period of 30 days of the order. The learned counsel submits that according to the terms of the agreement the petitioner was to get the balance amount of consideration at an earlier point of time than was tendered to him or paid by the government and, therefore, there is no question of discounting any amount from the amount of consideration mentioned in his agreement. According to the learned counsel discounting of any amount from the amount of consideration mentioned in the agreement can be made only in case where, according to the agreement between the parties, the payment is required to be made at a point of time later than the period required for making payment under the provisions of the Act. He submits that according to the provisions of the Act as they were in force at the relevant time the appropriate authority had to make the order for purchase within two months from the date on which application in form No.37 1 is submitted, otherwise, the appropriate authority has to issue no objection certificate. The petitioner was to get as per the agreement Rs.21,50,000/ within two months and 15 days from the agreement. However, now because the property is purchased by the Central Government, he gets only Rs.21,14,184/ and that too at a later date. According to the learned counsel this is contrary to the stated object of the Act. The learned counsel in support of his contention relies on the judgment of this Court in Shrichand Raheja v/s. S.C. Prasad, (1995)213, ITR 33 .