Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court.

ABDUL HADI J.

This writ appeal is against the order dated January 10, 1991, of Kanakraj J., in W. P. No. 16225 of 1990 (see 1991 (188) ITR 585, 1991 (92) CTR 219, 1991 (56) TAXMAN 40). The said writ petition by the respondent herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated September 19, 1990, of the appellant herein, declining to pass an order under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in pursuance of the statement filed by the respondent herein and his transferors, under section 269UC of the Act, and to direct the appellant to pass an order granting a certificate of no objection under section 269UL of the Act for the sale of No. 94, Poes Garden Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86, to him. The said writ petition was allowed as prayed for and hence this writ appeal by the respondent in the writ petition The respondent initially purchased, by a sale deed dated January 19, 1990, an extent of 2831 sq. ft. with superstructure thereon ( out of total extent of 8563 sq. ft. with superstructure thereon, bearing the abovesaid door No. 94, Poes Garden Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86, comprised in R.S. No. 1567/32 part, block No. 31, Mylapore Division, Madras, and owned by his vendor, Pushparani), for a consideration of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. Subsequently, on February 15, 1990, he entered into a sale agreement for purchasing the balance extent of 5732 sq. ft. with the superstructure thereon, from the same owner for a sum of Rs. 32.50 lakhs. ( No doubt, in the sale agreement, apart from the abovesaid owner Pushparani, her children were also parties, though they were said to be having no right in the said property, but added as parties in the said sale agreement, only at the request of the purchaser by way of abundant caution. ) Since, in the above sale agreement, the sale consideration was above Rs. 10 lakhs, the respondent as required under section 269UC of the Act ( coining under Chapter XX-C) read with rule 48L of the Incometax Rules, reduced the said agreement to the form of a statement prescribed under Form No. 37-1 and submitted it to the appellant on March 9, 1990. Under section 269UD of the Act, the Central Government is given a pre-emptive power to purchase immovable property covered by the said Chapter XX-C at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration stated in the relevant sale agreement. That is why section 269UC of the Act read with rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules provides for submission of the abovesaid statement in the above-referred to Form No. 37-1. In case the Central Government is not choosing to exercise the said power and purchase the said property accordingly, section 269UL(3) of the Act provides that the appellant shall issue a certificate of no objection stating that the Central Government has no objection to the transfer of such property for an amount equal to the apparent consideration therefor, as stated in the agreement for transfer of the immovable property in question. The proviso to section 269UD also states that no order for the purchase by the Central Government, of the property in question, shall be made after the expiration of a period of two months from the end of the month in which the abovesaid statement (Form No. 37-1) is received by the appellantNow, in the above situation, after the abovesaid Form No. 37-1 statement was submitted by the respondent, the appellant, however, by its letter dated May 17, 1990, stated that the said Form No. 37-I statement was "not a valid statement under section 269UC(3) of the Act in view of the alleged defects and rejected "the statement holding that the appellant" can neither issue a no objection certificate under section 269UL(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 *

. In the said letter dated May 17, 1990, the alleged defect pointed out is mainly that the alleged partition of the above-said property of a total extent of 8563 sq. ft. into two parts as stated above appear to be n