The appropriate authority's jurisdiction under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act is limited to passing an order for purchase of property by the Central Government or issuing a no objection certificate for transfer at the stated consideration, and it cannot go into the object or purpose of the transaction, or its legality and validity.

( 1 ) IN this petition, a very short but interesting question of law has arisen. The question posed is whether the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, (here nafter ealled the Act) is only. limited to either pass an order within the specified Period lor purchase of nruperty by the Central Government for consideration recorded in the agreement, or issuius a no objection certificate for transfer at that consideration, Whether the appropriate authority is to lake the document on its face value, or can also determine its validity and legality by looking into the various other enactments like the Wealth Tax Act, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Rsgulation) Act, the Delhi Municipal Corpoiation Act, etc.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the owner of a freehold immovable property measuring 2521. 5 sq. yds being plot no. A of property no. 101, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The said plot has a dwelling house servant quarters and a garage on it. She purchased the said dwelling house from one Smt. Malti Singh vide sale deed dated 11-10-72, duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, Plot no. 101, Friends Colony. New Delhi, was a large plot of land which was sub-divided into lour portions by the previous owner. Smt. Malti Singh sold the other three plots in the same property to different persons for different considerations. The petitioner since then has been in occupaton of the dwelling house on plot A as an absolute owner with full right title and interest therein as distinct from the right, title or interest of the other owners of plots B, C and D. The petitioner has also accepted as full owner of her property by the Wealth Tax department in her wealth tax returns. By an order dated 4-10-80, the Competent Authority under the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, has recognised her as the absolute owner of the property, by declaring that there was no excess vacant land in the said plot.

( 3 ) BY an agreement dated 9-10-89, the petitioner agreed to sell the said plot A in property no. 101. Friends Colony, New Delhi to M,s. J. K. Industries Ltd. , for a consideration of Rs. 3 crores and seventyfive thousand only. Immediately thereafter as required by Section 269-UC of the Income-tax ACT. the statement in prescribed form no. 37-1 was filed wth the appropriate authority. On the same day, Shri Pradeep Narane son of the petitioner also agreed to sell his adjoning plot b measwing 2005 sq. yds. to Mis. Hidrive Finance Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 85,00,000. He also filed a statement in the prescribed form no. 37-1 for purposes of the said transfer. In the said statement Pardeep Narang specifically mentioned. that the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had by order dated 18-9-79 held in his case that there was excess vacant land to the extent of 1176-44 sq. mtrs. This order of the competent authority is stated to be under challenge in this Court where an order of day of acquisition of the excess land has been passed. Further more, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has refused to sanction for building plans submitted by him (Pradeep Narang) for construction on the said plot.

( 4 ) THE case set up by the petitioner before the appropriate author ty was that the agreement of transfer of plot B between Shri Pradeep Naiang and M/s. Hidrive Finance Ltd. has nothing whatsoever to dc with the petitioner plot of land a or her agreement with M/s, J. K. Industries Ltd. The petitioner and Shri Prideep Naiang though being mother and son were and are independent owners of their respective plots and have distinct and independent right over the respective portions owned by them. Further more, there is a marked difference between the two plots inasmuch as the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has held that there is no excess vacant land in plot A. The said two statements in the prescribed