1976 (4) TMI 63 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the acquisition proceedings should have been initiated for the entire property or for each schedule separately.
2. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings.
3. Whether the property should be considered as a single unit or separate units for the purpose of determining fair market value.
4. Jurisdictional objections regarding the initiation of acquisition proceedings.
5. Validity of notices issued to the parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquisition Proceedings for Entire Property vs. Separate Schedules:
The competent authority initiated proceedings under Section 269 for the acquisition of a parcel of land measuring 16.268 sq. links. The transferors objected, arguing that there were four distinct sales of four separate schedules to four separate persons, and thus, the fair market value of none of the schedules would exceed Rs. 25,000. The competent authority held it as a single sale because it was a joint purchase by four brothers under one instrument of transfer.

2. Validity of the Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings:
The transferors and transferees contended that the competent authority should have initiated four separate proceedings for the four schedules. The competent authority overruled these objections, asserting that the property was enjoyed as a single unit and intended to be exploited as such by the transferees. The appellate tribunal found that the competent authority's approach was flawed and that each schedule should be considered separately to determine if the fair market value exceeds Rs. 25,000.

3. Property as Single Unit vs. Separate Units:
The Departmental Representative argued that the property should be considered as a single unit for the purpose of determining fair market value. The appellate tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the apparent tenor of the document indicated four distinct and separate sales. The tribunal emphasized that the expression "immovable property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees" should relate to the immovable property covered by a particular sale transaction, not the entire property covered by the instrument of transfer.

4. Jurisdictional Objections:
The Departmental Representative argued that the jurisdictional objections should have been raised under Section 269B(3) and decided under Section 269B(4). The tribunal disagreed, stating that the objections raised were not about territorial jurisdiction but about the irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the competent authority. The tribunal noted that one of the transferees had raised this objection in a timely manner, and thus, the argument was not acceptable.

5. Validity of Notices:
The transferees argued that the first notice issued before the initiation of proceedings was invalid and that the second notice issued on 2nd Sept., 1975, scrapped the first notice. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the first notice was valid and that issuing a second notice was merely surplusage. The tribunal clarified that there is nothing in Section 269 to suggest that a notice cannot be issued and served before the date of gazette publication.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal set aside the acquisition order passed by the competent authority and referred the case back for reconsideration. The competent authority was directed to first determine whether the fair market value of any one of the four schedules exceeds Rs. 25,000 and proceed accordingly. The parties were allowed to adduce fresh or additional evidence, and the transferees and transferors were entitled to raise all other questions of law not decided by the tribunal. The appeals were allowed in part.