The period of limitation under section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be waived, and the Court cannot extend the period for the Appropriate Authority to consider the matter afresh.

( 1 ) THE Court : On 17. 4. 89 the petitioners jointly entered into an agreement with one K. S. Binayak for sale of certain land, building, structure and machinery at a price of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The petitioners and the transferee filed a statement under section 269 UC of Chapter XXC of the Income I Tax Act 1961 (referred to as the Act) before the respondent No. 1 being the Appropriate Authority for considering whether the Central Government would purchase the immovable property being the subject matter of the sale under section 269 UD (1) of the Act.

( 2 ) BY an order dated 12. 6. 89 the Appropriate Authority, being the respondent No. 1, held that the statement was premature inasmuch as the agreement dated 17. 4. 89 could not be implemented by reason of the restrictions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (referred to as the 1976 Act ). It was stated that unless the proceedings under the 1976 Act were completed, no statement could be filed. This is the first order which has been impugned in this proceeding.

( 3 ) THE petitioners then made an application under the 1976 Act to the Competent Authority for a no objection certificate on 16th May 1990. In that application it was stated that the proposed transfer under the agreement dated 17. 4. 89 was not affected by the provisions of the 1976 Act. As no reply was received from the Competent Authority under section 26 (2) of the 1976 Act within the statutory period of 60 days, the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 1 on 21. 8. 90 to grant the necessary no objection certificate in respect of the proposed transfer under Chapter XXC of the Act. A fresh statement in Form No. 37-I was enclosed with the letter.

( 4 ) BY an order dated 25. 10. 90 the respondent No. 1 refused to grant a no objection certificate on the ground that there was no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the reasons mentioned in the order dated 12. 6. 89 stood. This is the second order which has been impugned in these proceedings.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed by the respondents that both the orders dated 12. 6. 89 and 25. 10. 90 are without jurisdiction and illegal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. and Ors. by which the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court. (Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. 188 ITR 623 ).

( 6 ) THE Delhi High Court in a similar fact-situation as this had held that the Appropriate Authority in exercise of the powers under section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality of the transaction which was proposed to be entered into by the applicant. It also held that the only order which could be passed under section 269 UD was an order of purchase and none other. In view of the affirmation of the decision of the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned orders dated 12. 6. 89 and 25. 10. 90 passed by the Appropriate Authority in this case are liable to be quashed.

( 7 ) THE only point which remains for consideration is whether in the circumstances the court should direct the Appropriate Authority to issue a no objection certificate under section 269 UL (3) of the Act or whether the court should direct him to decide the matter afresh.

( 8 ) THE rival contentions of the parties as to the relief to be granted in this writ may be appreciated if a brief summary of the relevant provisions in the Act is considered first. An agreement for transfer of immovable property has to be entered into 3 months prior to the actual transfer [269 UD (1)]. The agreement is to be reduced into a statement (Form 37-1) and submitted to the Appropriate Authority within a prescribed time (See Rule 48-L of the Income Tax Rules 1962 ). The Appropriate Authority has to take a decision for purchase of the property within 2 months from the end of the