CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2001) 05 SC CK 0044

Union of India (UOI) and Another vs Dr. A.K. Garg and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 4 May 2001 · Citation: (2003) 179 CTR 306 : (2002) 256 ITR 660 : (2002) 10 SCC 392 : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 315

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Rajendra Babu, J · K. G. Balakrishnan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 1998

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

4 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

In this matter which arises out of proceedings initiated u/s 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 September 6, 1993, was beyond the stipulated period u/s 269UG, thus attracting the wrath of section 269UH of the Act resulting in abrogation of 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 June 30, 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. Learned counsel for the appellant adverted to the letter dated June 8/9,1993, sent by the office of the Chief Commissioner of income tax-II, C. R. Building New Delhi (F. No. CCIT.II/AA/R-2470/1993-94/604). The portion relied upon in that letter in regard to the amount to be tendered or deposited in terms of Section 269UG 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 269UF and 269UG 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 June 30, 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.