G SATYANARAYANA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached us assailing the communication made to him by respondent No. 1 - ITO, Ward No. 1, Vizianagaram - intimating him with regard to his application for issue of "no objection certificate" under s. 230A of the IT Act that he should file a revised application duly signed by all the coparceners of the HUF along with evidence that all the properties under consideration belong to the HUF. It is submitted by Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the communication is not authorised under the provisions of s. 230A of the IT Act r/w rr. 44A and 44B and Form 34A of the IT Rules, 1962.

(2.) The brief facts according to the petitioner are that disputes in respect of the joint family properties of the petitioner along with his sons which constitute an HUF were subjected to arbitration in which an award has been passed, but as that award was not liable to be registered until the certificate as contemplated under s. 230A has been obtained, he, as the Karta of the HUF made an application to respondent No. 1 - ITO, Vizianagaram - that in view of the impugned communication made, he is under disability to obtain the certificate. While considering the case a submission has been made by Mr. T. Viswanadha Sastry that he may be permitted to implead the sons of the petitioner and has opposed the move by the petitioner to obtain the certificate since he has received instructions that the petitioner is no longer the Karta and that the properties do not belong to the HUF. We had not considered it necessary to allow his request as in the context of the case we do not think that the persons purporting to be impleaded have any locus standi.

(3.) Under s. 230A of the IT Act a document which purports to transfer, assign, limit or extinguish the right, title or interest of any person to or in any property valued at more than five lakhs rupees is not entitled to be registered, unless the AO certifies that the person has either paid or made satisfactory provision for payment of all existing liabilities under the IT Act and the other Acts mentioned therein, as also the fact that the registration of the document would not prejudicially affect the recovery of any existing liability under those Acts.