S. Mohan, C.J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Rajasekhara Murthy J., dated April 19, 1991, rendered in Writ Petition No. 6655 of 1991.
(2.) WE will refer to the facts in Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991 : Appellant entered into an agreement on November 28, 1990, with the third respondent for sale of an immovable property known as Mohan Buildings situate at Nos. 775 to 809, Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. Both the appellant and the third respondent, i.e., the transferor and the transferee, filed Form No. 37-I prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), framed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with the appropriate authority on November 30, 1990. The appropriate authority, by exercising power under section 269UD(1) of the Act, passed an order on January 24, 1991, directing the purchase of the said immovable property by the Central Government and holding that the property has vasted in the Central Government. The consideration for sale was Rs. 1,55,00,000. In and by the agreement, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 shall be paid within ten days from the date of receipt of the no objection certificate, and that the remaining sum of Rs. 55,00,000 shall be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed or within one year from the date of the agreement, whichever is earlier. The appropriate authority held that the provision pertaining to discounting the apparent consideration was available in respect of absolute of immovable property and, accordingly, arrived at the discounted value of consideration at Rs. 1,50,17,084. This was as against the apparent consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000 stated in the agreement for sale. The appellant authorised the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to pay Rs. 50,00,000 to the transferee, being the advance received by him. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax paid to the appellant a sum of Rs. 97,67,233 the details of which are as under : JUDGEMENT_584_ITR194_1992Html1.htm It was at this stage that Writ Petition No. 6655 of 1991 was filed by the appellant questioning the order of the appropriate authority dated January 24, 1991, and praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the same. The learned single judge did not think it worthwhile to go into the merits. He was of the view that the appellant had acquiesced in the order of the appropriate authority without any reservation both with regard to the reasons given by it and the amount of net consideration determined as payable to the vendor (i.e., the appellant). Further, the appellant produced documents of title and furnished all particulars to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, handed over possession of the property, and attorned the tenancy existing in a portion of the building. After concluding so, the learned judge gave a direction to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 2,49,851 which, according to him, was not liable to be deducted from the consideration payable. Ultimately, by his order dated April 19, 1991, the learned judge dismissed the writ petition. It is against the said order that the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991.
(3.) AS against the direction given by the learned single judge for payment of Rs. 2,49,851 to the appellant-transferor, the Revenue has preferred Writ Appeal No. 1335 of 1991. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant-transferor, attacking the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax dated January 24, 1991, makes the following submissions : The order of the appropriate authority does not disclose any reason ex facie. Even if such reasons are contained in the file, they have not been communicated to the appellant. ;