9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet, Fort, Bombay. They demolished one of the old structures and constructed a new building in that place now known as Apeejay House consisting of office blocks, godowns and car-parking spaces. The building was sold to various persons on what is known as ownership basis by blocks and godowns. Certain portions were retained by the vendors for their own use or for letting out to tenants. All this happened during the period from 1967 to 1972. The blocks and godowns so sold could not, in law, be registered in the names of the persons who purchased them on ownership basis, the law being that the land and the structure thereon can be transferred to a co operative society to be formed of such members who purchased blocks, godowns, flats etc., in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been issued on April 11, 1977, the notification to that effect being published in the Official Gazette on April 30, 1977. Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced arguments at length challenging each and every aspect of the matter. Since this court finds that the petition can be decided on the short ground that formation of belief as regards the third condition required in section 269C(1) is not satisfied, it is not considered necessary to examine other arguments. It is pertinent to mention that the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under section 269C is whether the Competent Authority has reason to believe that any immovable property of a fair market value exceeding Rs. 25,000 (then) has been t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 114, whether the presumptions raised in section 269C(2) are available to the Competent Authority for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction under section 269C/269D. Following the Calcutta and Gujarat High Court decisions, it was held that the presumptions could be raised after valid assumption of jurisdiction without the support of the presumptions and not for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction. No doubt Shri Jetly pointed that the Allahabad High Court in Pushpalata v. IAC of IT [1984] 150 ITR 42 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sutlej Chit Fund and Financiers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 174, had taken a contrary view. Be that as it may, following this court's jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1986] 162 ITR 697, it would have to be held that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority. He was uncertain as to whether the understatement was with the object of one or the other. It was necessary for him to say whether it was with a view to one object or to the other or both. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that condition No. 3 which is necessary for the assumption of valid jurisdiction under section 269C is not satisfied in this case. Before concluding, reference may also be made to the Board's circular, paragraph 38.1, where, in the context of introducing Chapter XXC in the Income-tax Act, the Board opined that, under Chapter XXA which covered sections 269C and 269D, the require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
