Judgment :- The two petitioners, father and son, are the owners of two contiguous plots of land in Sy. No. 985/8 of Thoppumpady Village, with extents of 7.5 and 8 cents respectively. The petitioners have jointly constructed a three-storyed building on the property, after taking a loan of Rs. Five lakhs from Bank. The petitioners state that they have subsequently explained to the Income Tax authorities their source of funds for the acquisition of the property and the construction of the building thereon. 2. The petitioners entered into an agreement Ext. P3 dated October 8,1991 with one A. A. Joseph to sell the 15.5 cents of land and the building thereon for a consideration of Rs. 12.75 lakhs. On getting information about this agreement, the first respondent Income Tax Officer queried by his communication Ext. P4, whether the proposal to transfer the property had been communicated to the Appropriate Authority under S.269DC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act). The petitioners replied their letter Ext. P5 that the agreement to sell related to their separate rights in the properties, the consideration for which was less than Rs. ten lakhs and therefore the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act were not applicable. The petitioners thereafter approached (he Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the second respondent with a request to issue appropriate directions to the first respondent to enable them to obtain the necessary clearance certificate under S.230A of the Act. Pursuant thereto the petitioners were informed by the first respondent by his letter Ext. P5 that they had to approach the Appropriate Authority under S.XX¬C of the Act. The writ petition was then filed challenging this view taken by the respondents. 3. Sub-section (1) of S.269UC in Chapter XX-C of the Act, read with R.48K of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or in any other 1 aw for the time being in force, no transfer of any immovable property of value exceeding Rs. ten lakhs shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the transferor and the proposed transferee in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) at least three months before the intended date of the transfer. ten lakhs shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the transferor and the proposed transferee in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) at least three months before the intended date of the transfer. Sub-sections (2) and (3) require the agreement to be in the form of a statement as specified therein, and the statement has to be furnished to the Appropriate Authority by the parties to the transaction in the manner and within the lime prescribed. Sub-section (I) read with R.48K speaks of the transfer of immovable property of value exceeding Rs. ten lakhs. Immovable property is defined for purposes of this Chapter in S.269UA(d) read with the explanation as meaning inter alia any land, or any building or. part of a building including any rights therein. The petitioners are separate owners of parcels of the land, and co-owners of the building with an equal share therein (vide Ext. P6). There is no controversy on these facts. What they are seeking to convey is their separate right in the land and the building, which constitutes immovable property under S.269UA(d). The consideration for the sale of the right of each of them does not exceed Rs. ten lakhs. The immovable property dealt with by each of the petitioners belongs to him and he has got the right to transfer it separately and without reference to the other co-owner. Its value is less than the prescribed limit. S.269UC has therefore no application to the sale though the total consideration for the transfer along with the other co-owner exceeds Rs .ten lakhs. The fact mat a consolidated sale deed of the rights of both the co-owners is proposed to be executed is irrelevant in this context, so long as the separate, though undivided, share of each of the co-owners is of value less than Rs. ten lakhs. The contention of the Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the co-owners constitute an assessable entity as an association of persons appears feeble and does not appeal to me as each of the petitioners has got a separate defined right, and in any case, the status of association of persons appears irrelevant so far as a building is concerned by virtue of S.26 of the Act. 4. The view that I have taken is fortified by two decisions of the Madras High Court, K. V. Kishorev. 4. The view that I have taken is fortified by two decisions of the Madras High Court, K. V. Kishorev. Appropriate Authority (1991) 189 ITR 264 and N.C. Rangesh v. Inspector General of Registration (1991) 189 ITR 270. In Kishore, the heirs of one S, to whom an immovable property belonged, sold it under a single instrument executed by all of them, for a consideration of Rs. twenty lakhs ; but the share of each of the vendors was less than Rs. ten lakhs. Ramalingam, J. held that the share allocable to each of the co-heirs came within the definition of "immovable property", he was entitled to transfer his share to third persons and therefore Chapter XX-C was inapplicable, though the plurality of co-owners joined together to execute a single document for purpose of convenience. 5. This decision was followed by Bakthavalsalam, J. in Rangesh with the ratio that the sale of an undivided interest in land for a value of less than Rs. .ten lakhs was not hit by Chapter XX-C. 6. The direction contained in Ext. P5 that the petitioners should approach the Appropriate Authority under Chap. XX-C of the Act is not therefore valid in law. The original petition is allowed and Ext. P8 is quashed. Any application for clearance certificate under S.230A will be dealt with in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.