1989 (6) TMI 104 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed against order under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Typographical error in the cause-title of the order.
3. Timeliness of the appeal under s. 269G.
4. Consideration of a letter as an order in continuation of the original order.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeals against orders of acquisition.
6. Definition of "Competent Authority" under s. 269A(b).
7. Distinction between the Competent Authority and the CIT.
8. Condonation of delay in presenting appeals under s. 269G.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a transferee, filed an appeal against an order under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961, where a typographical error wrongly described him as the "Transferor." The appeal was filed after the prescribed time limit for appeal under s. 269G had expired, raising questions about its timeliness.

2. The main issue was whether a letter from the CIT, Tamil Nadu III, dated 12th April, 1989, could be considered as an order in continuation of the original order passed by the Competent Authority on 29th March, 1988. The appellant argued that since the original order mentioned approval from the CIT, the subsequent letter should be seen as a continuation.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal only had jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders of acquisition made by the Competent Authority under s. 269F, and the CIT was not the Competent Authority. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as incompetent.

4. The Tribunal clarified the distinction between the Competent Authority and the CIT, stating that appeals could only be filed against orders made by the Competent Authority. The letter from the CIT, Tamil Nadu III, could not be considered as an order of the Competent Authority, making the appeal legally incompetent.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that they had previously ruled on their inability to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the specified period under s. 269G, further reinforcing the dismissal of the appeal as incompetent.

6. The judgment emphasized the statutory definitions and procedures under Chapter XX-A of the IT Act, outlining the roles of the Competent Authority and the CIT in property acquisition cases. The Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the legal framework and the lack of authority to entertain appeals not meeting the specified criteria.

7. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant on 26th May, 1989, was deemed legally incompetent and dismissed by the Tribunal for being filed beyond the permissible time limit and lacking the necessary jurisdictional requirements.