D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 04-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. 
. I 
v. 
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC. 
MAY4, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWAANDRUMAPAL,JJ.] 
Income Tax Act, I961-Sections 269 UA to 269 UM (Chapter XX-C), 
276 AB-Income Tax Rules, 1962-Rule 48L, From 37-1-Transferor and 
transferee of a flat filing From 37-I before the Appropriate Authority seeking 
no objection to the registration of the flat with the registering authority-
Appropriate authority pointing out certain defects in Fonn 37-I and requiring 
filing of a revised fonn within 15 days-Revised fonn filed after 15 days, 
rejected-Tenability of-Held, the 15 days period in Rule 48L is not manda-
tory and the Appropriate Authority was not correct in holding that the 
statement in Fonn 37-I after 15 day was deemed never to have been 
furnished-Rejection of Fonn 37-I on the ground that requisite particulars . 
were not furnished was inappropriate as it a composite fonn not requiring all 
particulars to be furnished-Appropriate Authority to either pass an order for 
purchase by the Central Government of the ifrimovable property in question 
or issue a no objection cert;ficate-In tJrt pfesent case, no such order for 
purchase having been made within three nionths of the receipt of Fonn 37-I, 
Appropriate Authority duty bound to issue no objection certificate to the 
transfer of the property. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
F 
Chapter XX-C, Income Tax Act, 196I-Object of, restated-Such object 
G 
to be the consideration while examination of the statement in Fonn 37-I-
Appropriate Authority not to act in a mechanical fashion and pass its order on 
irre Levant considerations. 
• 
Won:lr and Phrases: 
'Agreement for transfer' -Meaning of 
Two companies being engaged in the business of developing and 
dealing in real estate, entered into agreements with private parties for sale 
H 
of flats/apartments. Formal agreements; incorporating the terms of sale 
970 
D.L.F. UNNERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTIIORITY 
971 
were entered into. Subsequently, the two companies as transferors and the 
private parties as transferees filed Form 37-1 of the Income Tax Rules, 
1962 before the Appropriate Authority seeking no objection to the regis-
tration of the flats/apartments with the registering authority. The Appro-
priate Authority sent notices to the transferors and the transferees under 
Section 269 UC( 4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pointing out certain defects 
in Form 37-1 and requiring them to remove the defects within 15 days by 
filing revised Form 37-1. Replies thereto were filed. However, by orders 
made under Section 269 UC(4) of the Income Tax Act, Appropriate Au-
thority held that !)>rm 37-1 had been belatedly field in contravention of 
Rule 48-L and was not maintainable. 
Against the aforesaid orders of the Appropriate Authority rejecting 
J;'orm 37-1, writ petitions were filed and the High Court allowed the same, 
setting aside the orders of the Appropriate Authority. Aggrieved, Appro-
priate Authority filed all the present appeals except one preferred by one 
A 
B 
c 
of the transferor-companies being aggrieved by the interpretation given by 
D 
the High Court to Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act and Rule 48-L 
and Form 37-l of the Income Tax Rules. 
On behalf of the Appropriate Authority, it was contended that 15 
days period In Rule 48-L was mandatory and that Section 276 AB pro-
vided for prosecution in case there was failure to comply with the provi-
sions of Section 269 UC; that the Appropriate Authority could exercise its 
jurisdiction to acquire the property if consideration agreed to was less 
than 15 per cent of the market value; that the agreement for transfer 
contained variables and unless all these were known, it would be handi-
capped in making an order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Statementin Form 37-1 was in order and was furnished 
E 
F 
to the Appropriate Authority within the time prescribed. The Appropriate 
Authority did not make any order within three months of its receipt of the 
G 
said statement for purchase by the Central Government of the immovable 
property in question. That being the position, the Appropriate Authority is _ 
duty bound to issue no objection certificate to the transfer of the property 
in the circumstances of the case. The Appropriate Authority is directed to 
grant no objection certificate to the parties forthwith. [994-B-C} 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
MOL 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.