9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order to acquire a shop under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961. - Allegation of understatement of consideration in the instrument of transfer. - Legal validity of the acquisition proceedings. - Absence of proper service of notice under s. 269D(2) to the transferee. - Challenge to the fair market value determination by the Competent Authority. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order to acquire a shop under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961, based on the alleged understatement of consideration in the instrument of transfer. The Competent Authority determined the fair market value of the property to be higher than the apparent consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The transferor objected, citing the urgent need for funds and encumbrances on the property, arguing that the apparent consideration was the real consideration. The transferee also objected, claiming no notice was received and disputing the fair market value assessment. The Competent Authority proceeded with the acquisition, leading to the appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order. The legality of the acquisition proceedings was questioned, specifically regarding the absence of proper service of notice under s. 269D(2) to the transferee. The AR argued that without serving individual notices to interested parties within the prescribed period, the acquisition proceedings were invalid. Citing a previous decision, it was emphasized that proper service of notice was essential for a valid order under s. 269F(6). The AR's contention was supported by the requirement of both publication in the official gazette and individual notice service for a valid initiation of proceedings under Chap. XXA of the IT Act. The Tribunal agreed with the AR's argument, holding that the absence of proper service of notice to the transferee rendered the acquisition proceedings invalid. Referring to legal commentary, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of both gazette publication and personal service for a valid initiation of proceedings. As the transferee was not served with a proper notice under s. 269D(2) within the prescribed time, the Tribunal concluded that the acquisition order was illegal. Consequently, the order to acquire the property was quashed, and the appeal was allowed to succeed solely on the grounds of the legal invalidity of the acquisition proceedings due to the lack of proper notice to the transferee. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspect of the acquisition proceedings, highlighting the significance of serving individual notices to interested parties within the specified timeframe for a valid initiation of proceedings under the IT Act. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to statutory requirements for a lawful acquisition process, ultimately leading to the quashing of the acquisition order in this case.
|
