1985 (3) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of issuing notice under section 269D(2) before publication of notice under section 269D(1).
2. Requirement to regulate property acquisitions under circular instructions.
3. Validity of fair market value determination by Tribunal and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary contention revolved around the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner due to the timing of issuing notices under section 269D. The Tribunal allowed an additional ground raised by the appellants, challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated before the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. The High Court, referencing a previous case, held that allowing the additional ground was erroneous in law. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in invalidating the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner based on the belatedly raised jurisdictional issue.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerned the applicability of circular instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regulating property acquisitions under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act. The High Court emphasized the binding nature of these circulars on all authorities under the Act. The Court acknowledged the subsequent circular instructions issued by the Board and directed that the pending appeals be regulated based on these instructions. It was highlighted that any order under Chapter XX-A must await the Commissioner's decision on applications made under the 1976 Act.

Issue 3:
Regarding the determination of the fair market value of the property, the Court noted that this question would depend on the Commissioner's decision and the applicability of the 1976 Act. The Court opined that the valuation of the property should align with established principles, necessitating a reevaluation by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and remitted the cases to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for redetermination in light of the Commissioner's forthcoming decision and the principles outlined in the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to reevaluate the proceedings based on the Commissioner's decision under the 1976 Act and the guidelines provided in the circular instructions. The Court instructed that the appellants could not challenge the validity of Chapter XX-A or the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the disposition of the Income-tax Appeals.