2002 (7) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

The competent authority notified by the Central Government under the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act 1961 initiated proceedings for acquisition of the property and the publication of notice in the Official Gazette was made under section 269D(1) of the Act dated January 4 1996. The competent authority was of the opinion that the value of the property was understated and therefore he initiated the proceedings for the acquisition of the property. The competent authority after hearing the parties passed separate orders acquiring the properties covered in the instrument of transfer. - there was no evidence to show that the extra consideration was passed. In the absence of any material before the competent authority to form a reasonable belief that there was an ulterior motive of tax evasion or concealment of income-tax due to untrue statement of the apparent consideration in the instrument of transfer we hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal quashing the acquisition proceedings does not call for interference. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal preferred by the Revenue confirming the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. - In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue fails

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the acquisition of property under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Interpretation of provisions under section 269C and 269D of the Act.
- Availability of presumptions under section 269C at various stages of the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the acquisition of a property under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent was one of the transferees of the property situated in Chennai, and the competent authority initiated proceedings for acquisition based on the belief that the property's value was understated. The Tribunal found that the competent authority lacked material to support the belief of understated consideration for tax evasion. The Revenue contended that the presumption under section 269C(2) should have been available to the competent authority before the publication of the acquisition notice. The respondent cited relevant case laws to support the Tribunal's decision.

The High Court analyzed the conditions for the competent authority's jurisdiction under section 269C, requiring a transfer of property worth over Rs. 25,000 with the fair market value exceeding the apparent consideration by 15%. The key question was the availability of presumptions under section 269C at different stages of the acquisition process. Divergent views from various High Courts were considered, with the Court favoring the position that the presumptions do not apply until the publication of the acquisition notice. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in a related matter, emphasizing the need for a reason to believe in tax evasion motives before invoking Chapter XX-A.

The Court highlighted that evidence was lacking for the competent authority to reasonably believe in tax evasion through understated consideration. While the Inspector's report on the property's market value was noted, it was deemed insufficient to support the belief of tax evasion. Without evidence of extra consideration or ulterior motives for tax evasion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the acquisition proceedings. The judgment dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's orders.

In conclusion, the High Court's thorough analysis focused on the interpretation of relevant provisions under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support the belief of tax evasion through understated property consideration. The judgment clarified the availability of presumptions under section 269C and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the lack of evidence supporting tax evasion motives.