9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of acquisition proceedings under the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of fair market value of property. 3. Jurisdiction of Competent Authority in acquisition proceedings. 4. Rectification of defects in notice for acquisition. 5. Requirement of publication in the Gazette for acquisition order. Analysis: 1. The appeal was against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside an order made under section 269F of the Income Tax Act, initiating acquisition proceedings for a property sold for an alleged undervalued consideration. 2. The Competent Authority relied on a Valuation Officer's report determining the fair market value of the property at Rs. 2,11,000, rejecting objections raised by the transferor and transferees regarding the valuation. 3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the Gazette notification initiating the acquisition proceedings was defective, thus lacking jurisdiction for further action by the Competent Authority. 4. The Tribunal's decision was based on a typographical mistake in the notice regarding the description of the property, leading to the view that the entire proceeding was vitiated. However, the High Court disagreed with this technical view, stating that the defect was curable, especially since the parties were not prejudiced by the mistake. 5. The High Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of publication in the Gazette for any acquisition order under section 269D, highlighting the need for proper verification of publication of a corrigendum rectifying defects in the notice before making an acquisition order. 6. The High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the appeal, considering the overlooked contentions related to the actual valuation of the property on the transaction date, besides addressing the issues raised in the original appeal. 7. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal, vacating the Tribunal's order, and instructing a fresh disposal of the appeal while considering the observations made by the High Court. 8. The judgment was concurred by both Judges, B. N. Misra and R. N. Mishra, with a direction for costs to abide by the event.
|
