SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 1998, D/d. 4.5.2001.

Union of India - Appellants

Versus

Dr A.K. Garg - Respondent

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 269UD, 269UG and 269UII (Ch. XX-C) - Limitation - Compulsory purchase of immovable property - Failure of Government to offer the amount to consideration to the parties concerned within the statutory time limit - Purchase order, stood abrogated - Amount had to be tendered or if there is any dispute in this regard, the same should have been deposited with the appropriate authority on or before the date.

[Para 2]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - In this matter which arises out of the proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking to acquire certain properties on the ground that the consideration disclosed in the sale documents fell short of the real market value of the property.

2. When that action was challenged before the High Court in writ proceedings it was found by the High Court that the sum of Rs 23,13,994 tendered by the Central Government on 6-9-1993 was beyond the stipulated period under Section 269-UG, thus attracting the wrath of Section 269-UH of the Act resulting in abrogation to the purchase order. The said amount had to be tendered or if there is any dispute in this regard, the same should have been deposited with the appropriate authority on or before 30-6-1993. The case put forth by the Department is that the amount had been deposited with the appropriate authority but there is no material to show that the same was tendered or offered to the parties concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant adverted to the letter dated 8-6-1993/9-6-1993 sent by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-II, C.R. Building, New Delhi (F. No. CCIT.II/AA/R-2470/93-94/604). The portion relied upon in that letter in regard to the amount to be tendered or deposited in terms of Section 269-UG of the Act is as follows:

"The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi has been authorised by the Central Government to tender the amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration under Sections 269-UF and 269-UG of the Act."

3. All that is sought to be done by this letter is that the Chief Commissioner is authorised by the Central Government to tender the amount to the party. There is no material forthcoming to show that such offer was made before 30-6-1993. Therefore, in the circumstances, we find full justification with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed with cost to be paid to the respondent which is quantified at Rs 25,000.

Appeal dismissed.