COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS AZIZUNNISA BEGUM, 2001 PTD-SUPREME-COURT-INDIA 3378 (2000)

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 21, 1993 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.7888 of 1990).

(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Income‑tax Department‑‑‑Decision of High Court in the case of one assessee against Department‑‑‑No appeal to Supreme Court filed‑‑ Subsequent decision of High Court in the cases of other assessees following earlier decision‑‑‑Department not entitled to accept judgment in earlier case and challenge its correctness without just cause in the cases of other assessees.

(b) Income‑tax‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Purchase of immovable property by Central Government‑‑‑Obligation to pay "apparent consideration"‑‑‑Discounted value of apparent consideration‑‑ Whether registration fees and stamp duty can be taken into account because seller had agreed to share those expenses‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.269UA(b), 269UD & 269UF.

In Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India (1993) 204 ITR 866, the Gujarat High Court had decided, inter alia, that the appropriate authority had no power, authority or jurisdiction, in ascertaining the discounted value of the apparent consideration, under section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to deduct from the total amount of the consideration, any sum on the supposition that if the sale had taken place the seller would have been out of pocket to the extent of 50 per cent. of the total registration fees and stamp duty, because he had agreed that these expenses would be shared equally between the seller anal buyer. In a subsequent case relating to other parties the Gujarat High Court followed its earlier decision. The Department preferred an appeal to the supreme Court from the later decision of the High Court. The Department was unable to explain what was the fate of the appeal filed against the decision in Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India, if filed, or why no appeal was filed against that decision. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal holding that it was not open to the Revenue to accept the earlier judgment in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness without just cause in the case of other assessees.

Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) ref.

K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Shashi Kiran, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellants.

Manoj Arora and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates for Respondents.

ORDER

The order under challenge in this appeal by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India (1993) 204 ITR 866. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the papers before us suggest that a special leave petition was preferred against that judgment but he has no instructions as to what happened thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondents states that their enquiries with the Registry reveal that no appeal against that judgment was preferred by the Revenue.

If the Revenue did not accept the correctness of the judgment in the case, of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj.), it should have preferred an appeal thereagainst and instructed counsel as to what the fate pf that appeal was or why no appeal was filed. It is not open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. For this reason, we decline to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court in this matter and dismiss the civil appeal.

No order as to costs.

M.B.A./1032/FCAppeal dismissed.