CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1999) 01 KL CK 0004

K. A. SUDESH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 January 1999 · Citation: (1999) 154 CTR 482

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J
CASE NUMBER
O. P. No. 8066 of 1994 1 February 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 366 words

The present original petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Special Range, Trivandrum (Ist respondent) dated 1- 12-1993 and a copy of the same is marked as Ext. P8.

2.

The second respondent, which is a private limited company, proposed to sell some property in favour of the petitioners herein. As the sale consideration exceeds rupees two lakhs, as required u/s 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), an application was made for the issuance of the certificate which alone would enable the parties to get the document registered. In this case, the application was made by the petitioners. In the order dated 1-12-1993, the first respondent has expressed his inability to issue a certificate u/s 230A of the Act unless all the legal requirements for issue of the same are satisfied by the second respondent. Aggrieved by this, the present original petition has been filed.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the person who has to apply for such a certificate in any transaction is only the transferor and not the transferee. But, in this case, the application was made by the transferee. In view of that, the respondents did not issue such certificate.

4.

Now, before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the simple ground that the first respondent in passing such an order has not assigned any reason. Of course, there is some substance in the contention raised by the petitioners'' counsel. But, at the same time, this court has to take note of the legal position, namely, a person who has to apply for a certificate u/s 230A is only the transferor and not the transferee.

5.

It is open to the transferor, namely, the second respondent, to make an application as stipulated u/s 230A before the first respondent. Once such an application is made, the first respondent shall dispose of the same on merits and as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

OPEN