9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituted by respondent No. 1 and the notice dated 25/28th of November, 1974, issued by respondent No. 2 and all proceedings thereunder. The facts are shortly as follows: The petitioner purchased 1/9th share of the premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. This conveyance was executed on 9th of March, 1973. A notice was issued to the petitioner on the 3rd of August, 1973, by the Valuation Officer of the I.T. Dept. stating that a reference had been made to him for determination of the fair market value of the said premises. Time was fixed for such hearing. Thereafter, a notice under s. 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was received by the petitioner. This was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 22nd of September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (XXVII of 1957), the competent authority may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, initiate proceedings for the acquisition of such property under this Chapter: Provided that before initiating such proceedings, the competent authority shall record his reasons for doing so: Provided further that no such proceedings shall be initiated unless the competent authority has reason to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than fifteen per cent. of such apparent consideration. (2) In any proceedings under this Chapter in respect of any immovable property, (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions the appropriate authority has merely relied on the alleged conclusive proof and presumption specified in sub-s. (2) and apart from the same no material has been disclosed in support of such a reasonable belief. This, Dr. Pal has submitted, is contrary to the provisions of s. 269C. The conclusive proof and presumption specified in sub-s. (2), according to Dr. Pal, does not apply in this case at this stage, that is, at the stage of initiation of the proceedings, but only after such proceeding has, in fact, been initiated and notice has been issued. In this connection, Dr. Pal has relied on the case of Bani Roy Chowdhury v Competent Authority [1978] 112 ITR 111 (Cal). This has been followed by Sabyasachi Mukharji J. in his judgment del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice under s. 269C. Before this notice can be issued there must be a " reason to believe " as contemplated in s. 269C. Accordingly, when sub-s. (2) of s. 269C states about " any proceeding under this Chapter " the preliminary condition before the initiation of the proceedings is not within the scope of the same. In my opinion, the language of the relevant provision of ss. 269C and 269D makes it clear that the " proceeding under this Chapter " does not refer to a stage before a notice has been given. The formation of reasonable belief is not a part of such proceeding. At this stage of formation of such belief the question of " conclusive proof " or any " presumption " cannot and does not arise. There must be material for the formation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
