N KARUNA Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not granting a "no objection certificate" pursuant to the joint statement filed in Form No. 37-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as illegal and arbitrary by setting aside the proceedings dated February 7, 2000, in Proc. No. AA/BNG/10(44)/1/99-2K, on the file of the second respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith grant a no objection certificate to the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may briefly be stated as under :

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, a counter has been filed by the third respondent. The third respondent is not directly connected with the proceedings that were taken under Chapter XX-C of the Act and it is only the first respondent, which is concerned with the actions that were taken under the provisions of Chapter XX-C either to issue a no-objection certificate in favour of the petitioners or to exercise the option of pre-emptive purchase in favour of the Government. Be that as it may, however, a counter has been filed by the third respondent denying the allegations of the petitioners. In the counter it is stated that based on the comparative sales, the valuation was determined and it was found that the market value was more than 15 per cent. of the apparent consideration. It is also stated that as per the objections filed by the petitioners through their advocate, it was noticed by the appropriate authority that physical possession of the subject property was handed over by the first petitioner to the second petitioner, which is tantamount to transfer in terms of Section 269UA(f) of the Act and therefore such transfer is in violation of Section 269UL(2) of the Act. Hence, the petitioners have no right to seek a no-objection certificate under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the application in Form No. 37-I was lodged. In the counter it was reiterated that the decisions referred to in the impugned proceedings, squarely applies to the case on hand and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.