| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 847 1984 SLD 847 (1984) 150 ITR 351 |
Karnataka High Court
30888
K.S. PUTTASWAMY, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
30888
K.S. PUTTASWAMY, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Smt. Indira
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 230A of the income-tax act, 1961-Restrictions on registration of transfer of immovable property-Whether an application for certificate under section 230 by transferee of property is maintainable-Held, no. Facts An house property was owned by N, the respondent, who entered into an agreement to sell the same to I, the petitioner. Later the respondent executed a sale deed in the petitioner's favour and the sale deed was presented before the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration. However, the Sub-Registrar refused registration of the said sale deed on the ground that N, the transferor, had not produced before him a certificate under section 230A. T challenged the Sub-Registrar's order in an appeal before the concerned District Registrar. While prosecuting the said appeal before the District Registrar, the petitioner made an application before the ITO for the issue of a certificate under section 230A in favour of the respondent but the ITO rejected the same. On writ by T with the request for a mandamus to the ITO to issue the said certificate. Held The words 'such person'' occurring in section 230A refer to the transferor or the person creating interest in favour of another. The said section requires the ITO to issue a certificate only to the transferor and not to the transferee or any other person. Therefore, the application made by 'I', the transferee, under the said section before the ITO was not maintainable. Accordingly, the ITO was justified in refusing the said application, though he had not set out the reasons in support of his finding. Case review Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 2 KB 403 (CA) 414 relied on. Mrs. Helen Jayaraj v. Sub-Registrar of Mylapore[1983] 139 ITR 942 (Mad.) dissented from. Editor's note The Court directed that if the petitioner made an application for a certified copy of the certificate, if any, issued to the respondent, the ITO would examine and issue the same. WRIT PETITION NO. 8857 OF 1984. Cases Referred to Mrs. Helen Jayaraj v. Sub-Registrar of Mylapore [1983] 139 ITR 942 (Mad.), Cape Brady Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 21 KB 403 (CA) 414. V.H. Upadhyaya for the Petitioner. K. Srinivasan and H. Raghavendra Rao for theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492