Patliputra Co-Coperative House Construction Society Ltd. and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh V. THE UNION OF INDIA and Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department

CWJC/8807/1995

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Patliputra Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, who sought to transfer property but were denied permission by the Appropriate Authority of the Income Tax Department due to a defective Form 37-I. The petitioners argued against this decision in the High Court of Patna. The court, after reviewing the submissions and the counter affidavit from the Income Tax Department, concluded that the application was indeed defective and the petitioners failed to rectify these defects, leading to the dismissal of their writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815431 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA
• Keywords: Co-operative Society; Defective; Form 37-I; Income Tax Department; Property Transfer; Housing Colony
• Section: 269-UC

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8807 of 1995 1. M/s. Patliputra Co-Coperative House Construction Society Ltd., Patliputra Colony, Patna through its Secretary Sri Ltd. Col. (Retd.) Arun Prasad Sinha (Seller), S/O Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha, R/O 51, Mohalla Patlipura Colony, District of Patna. 2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Anirudh Prasad Singh, R/O 13, Mehar Kunj, Mohalla New patliputra Colony, District of Patna ( Purchaser) --- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department, Peekay Bhawan, 3rd Floor,18, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow --- Respondents. ----------- 5/ 13.09.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Heard Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.03.1995 (Annexure-8), passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Lucknow, in terms of section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby he had refused to rely upon Form 37-I, which is defective, and deficient in some vital respects as pointed out in the impugned order. Therefore, permission for transfer of property by petitioner no.1 in favour of petitioner no.2 has not been accorded. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax. It appears that petitioner no.1 is a Co-operative Society of Government servant and has set up a Housing Colony in 2 the township of Patna. Petitioner No.1 negotiated for sale of a plot of land in favour of petitioner no.2. The petitioners were required to take permission of the Appropriate Authority under section 269 UC of the Act for transfer and, therefore, submitted an application in Form 37-I. The application was found to be defective by the impugned order and is summarized in paragraph-15 of the writ petition. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have tried to explain the position. 4. It appears to us that paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit seems to conclude the matter which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “That with regard to statement made in paragraph 6, it is submitted that merely filing and filing a form No. 37-I does not tentamount to reducing an agreement to sell in writing. Since the apparent consideration in the present case was more than Rs. 10,00,000/- an agreement to sell should have been reduced in writing and thereafter on the basis of such an agreement a form No. 37-I was required to be filed within 15 days from the date of such agreement and atleast 4 months before the intended date of transfer of the property. Agreement to sell was never filed. “ 5. It is thus evident that Form No. 37-I was incomplete and the petitioners did not take appropriate 3 steps to remove the defects. We, therefore, of the view that the learned Appropriate Authority rightly rejected the application of the petitioners. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, of the case there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) "