2007 (10) TMI 289 - HC - Income Tax

Petition challenging the order passed by the appropriate authority u/s 269UD(1) and the constitutional validity of rule 48L of ITR 1962 - irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were put in possession of the flat in question after October 1 1986 in view of the fact that the petitioners acquired a right in respect of the flat prior to October 1 1986 the transaction would be clearly covered by the provisions of Chapter XX-A and not XX-C - Without furnishing the particulars of the sale instances set out in the SCN the appropriate authority could not have passed the impugned order in breach of the principles of natural justice authority has not given any reasons as to why the sale instance relied upon by the petitioners is not comparable - impugned order cannot be sustained - However rule 48L prescribing time limit for filing statement in Form no. 37I is in conformity and consistent with the provisions of the Act - petition succeeds

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Constitutional validity of rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Determination of the effective date of transfer for the applicability of Chapter XX-A or Chapter XX-C.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the proceedings under Chapter XX-C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the order dated February 15, 1993, arguing that the transaction of the flat transfer was governed by Chapter XX-A and not Chapter XX-C, rendering the impugned order passed under Chapter XX-C without jurisdiction. The Revenue contended that the actual transfer occurred after Chapter XX-C came into force, thus validating the order under Chapter XX-C.

2. Constitutional Validity of Rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
The petitioners argued that rule 48L(2) was unconstitutional as it applied Chapter XX-C to agreements entered into before October 1, 1986. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that rule 48L(2)(a) applies to agreements before October 1, 1986, to which Chapter XX-A is not applicable, thus maintaining the rule's constitutionality.

3. Determination of the Effective Date of Transfer:
The petitioners contended that the agreement dated August 30, 1986, effectively transferred the flat under Chapter XX-A. They had obtained a no-objection certificate, paid part of the consideration, received shares, and an irrevocable power of attorney. The court agreed, stating that the transaction was covered by Chapter XX-A as the petitioners acquired rights in the flat before October 1, 1986. The court distinguished the case from others cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that possession after October 1, 1986, did not change the applicability of Chapter XX-A due to the rights acquired before that date.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
Even if Chapter XX-C applied, the court found the impugned order unsustainable on merits. The Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India required significant undervaluation to justify Chapter XX-C's application, which was not determined in this case. The appropriate authority failed to provide sale instance particulars despite repeated requests, breaching natural justice principles. The court also noted the lack of reasons for rejecting the petitioners' comparable sale instance.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated February 15, 1993, under Chapter XX-C, holding that the transaction was covered by Chapter XX-A, and even if Chapter XX-C applied, the order was unsustainable due to non-compliance with natural justice and lack of proper valuation. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.