RAJ NAIR Vs. S.K. LAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of the flat and by Agreement entered into on 30th June, 1992 agreed to sell the said property namely Flat No.2, Shyam Sadan, 93, Ghod Bunder Road, S.V. Road, Khar (West), Bombay-400 052 admeasuring 870 sq. ft. carpet area. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 served notice under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner is not challenging the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in purchasing the property.

(2.) The respondents had passed an order under sub-section (1) of Section 269UD dated 27th August, 1992. The Tribunal noted that by the Agreement of 30th June, 1992, Rs.2,35,111/- was paid as earnest money and a sum of Rs.21,15,000/- was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the receipt of N.O.C. under Section 269UN (3) of the Income-tax Act 1961. The Members of the Appropriate Authority observed that as that payment was deferred for three months, in terms of provisions of Section 269UA(b) read with Rule 48-1 by an amount had to be discounted for three months and thus worked out to Rs.40,291/-and thus the compensation payable was Rs.23,09,820/- out of Rs.23,50,111/- .

(3.) The 1st question that has to be considered is what is the date that has to be considered for the purpose of discounting. In our opinion that issue is no longer res integra. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Shrichand Raheja and Anr. vs. S.C. Prasad (Appropriate Authority) & Others, 213 ITR 33 had taken a view that discounting of value is to be determined for the period commencing from the date on which the balance consideration was payable under the agreement between the parties and that it was not open to the Appropriate Authority as contended by the Revenue to ascertain the discounted value from the date of the Agreement. This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhai J. Patel vs. Union of India, 247 ITR 182. The Supreme Court considered the judgment in Shrichand Raheja & Anr. (supra) and observed as under: