1986 (11) TMI 117 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquisition order under Section 269G of the IT Act.
2. Method of property valuation.
3. Basis for initiation of acquisition proceedings.
4. Service of notice to interested parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the acquisition order under Section 269G of the IT Act:
The appeals were filed by the transferees against the acquisition order dated 18th March 1986 by the Competent Authority (IAC). The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings were invalid due to multiple procedural and substantive errors. The Tribunal found that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to lack of proper notice and incorrect valuation methods.

2. Method of property valuation:
The appellants contended that the property, which included a dall mill, should have been valued using the yield method or rental method rather than the land and building method. They argued that since the property was leased out and generating rental income, the yield method would provide a more accurate market value. The Tribunal noted that the Valuation Officer had incorrectly assumed the property was owner-occupied and adopted the land and building method. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, which supported the use of the yield method for properties generating rental income.

3. Basis for initiation of acquisition proceedings:
The appellants argued that the initiation of acquisition proceedings was based solely on an IT Inspector's report, which estimated the property's market value at Rs. 3,92,500. They contended that the report lacked credibility and did not form a valid basis for initiating proceedings. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel, which emphasized that the belief for acquisition must be based on rational and relevant material. The Tribunal found that the IT Inspector's report was conjectural and lacked the technical expertise required for property valuation.

4. Service of notice to interested parties:
The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings were invalid due to the failure to serve notice to all interested parties, specifically the contractors company in possession of the dall mill. The Tribunal noted that Section 269D(2)(a) mandates the service of notice to all interested parties, including those in possession of the property. The Tribunal referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Mohammed Mahboob Ali Sahib & Ors. vs. IAC, which held that non-service of notice to interested parties renders the proceedings void. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to serve notice to the contractors company was a fatal procedural defect.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found multiple defects in the acquisition proceedings, including improper valuation methods, lack of credible basis for initiation, and failure to serve notice to all interested parties. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and canceled the acquisition proceedings under Section 269F of the IT Act.