Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, R.V.Easwar, JJ.
Raghbir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Appropriate Authority I.T.Deptt. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 524/1995
Decided On : 05-01-2012
Easement - Property Dispute - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 269 UD(1) - Section 269 UJ - Section 131 - Section 152 - Section 153 - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 269 UD(1), Section 269 UJ, Section 131, Section 152, Section 153] - The court discussed the petitioner's dispute with Vidyawati and her sons over the purchase of property, the subsequent orders passed by the court, and the application filed by the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court analyzed the show cause notice issued by the appropriate authority, the rectification applications filed by the petitioner, and the subsequent order passed by the appropriate authority. The court considered the arguments of the petitioner, the standing counsel, and the auction purchaser, and the attempt at mediation between the parties. The court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and upheld the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Raghbir Singh, entered into negotiations with Vidyawati and her sons for the purchase of property. Disputes arose, leading to a suit and subsequent settlement between the parties. The petitioner filed an application under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequently, the appropriate authority passed an order under Section 269 UD(1) of the Act, which the petitioner challenged in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and upheld the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issues: Dispute over property purchase, application under the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenge to the order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269 UD(1)
Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate authority's order under Section 269 UD(1) was upheld based on the court's analysis of the petitioner's contentions, the show cause notice, the rectification applications, and the arguments presented by the parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all interim orders were vacated.
R.V. Easwar, J.
The facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner is one Raghbir Singh of 302-R, Model Town, Ludhiana-II. He was desirous of acquiring residential property in Delhi on ownership basis and accordingly approached respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are Smt. 3 Vidyawati, wife of late Shiv Saran Das and their six sons. Vidya Wati owned the property at No.27, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. She had acquired the property under a registered gift deed in October, 1950. The petitioner negotiated with Vidyawati and her sons for the purchase of the property. As a result of the negotiations, the petitioner is stated to have agreed to purchase the rights, title and interest in the whole of the terrace floor with mumty over the ground floor in the residential building owned by Vidyawati. These rights were to be acquired by him together with 50% undivided share in the plot of land underneath the building. The total consideration was Rs. 3,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was accordingly entered into on 11.7.1992 between the petitioner on the one hand and Vidyawati and her sons on the other.
2. The petitioner thereafter paid the consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- undertaken to be paid by him to Vidyawati. It is claimed that she delivered vacant possession of the terrace floor in part performance of the agreement and undertook to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and also to obtain all requisite permissions from the authorities. It is alleged that there was some delay by Vidyawati in discharging her obligations under the agreement to sell. At one point of time it appears that Vidyawati and her sons had offered to sell the entire property to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.53,50,000/-. However, this did not materialise. Instead, Vidyawati offered the rear side portion of the premises to the petitioner for a total consideration of 3 Rs.7.50 lacs. This, it is stated, was accepted by the petitioner who paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the Vidyawati who also acknowledged the same.
3. The petitioner submits that the agreement to sell the rear portion of the premises was not honoured by the Vidyawati who it is alleged to have avoided performing their part of the contract and, therefore, the petitioner was forced to file a suit on 19.5.1993 before this Court (suit No.1209/1993) against Vidyawati and others for a perpetual and mandatory injunction against them.
4. It is now necessary to refer in brief to the various orders passed by the Court in the suit for the sake of completeness. The Court was pleased to direct status quo of the property to be maintained by order passed on 24.5.1993. On 10.12.1993 another order was passed restraining the defendants therein from entering into any agreement to sell or negotiate for transfer or alienation of the property or creation of any third party interest therein. After the above order was passed, it is stated that Vidyawati and her sons approached the petitioner for an amicable settlement of the disputes and accordingly on 04.02.1994 the suit was decreed taking the settlement on record. According to the said settlement, Vidyawati agreed to sell the entire property for Rs.56.50 lacs, subject to adjustment of the amount of Rs.9.25 lakhs already paid by the petitioner. The parties, i.e. the petitioner and Vidyawati, were directed to obtain clearances from the L&DO and Income Tax Department. The parties were directed to complete all the above arrangements within the next 7 3 days. Another order was passed by this Court on 04.03.1994 again taking on record the settlement between the parties and giving some further directions for moving the authorities for necessary permissions etc. and for depositing the purchase price in the court.
5. In terms of the order dated 04.03.1994 of the Court in the aforesaid suit the petitioner filed an application on 20.5.1994 before the appropriate authority constituted under Chapter XX-C of the Income T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
