9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d over to the purchasers after construction of a new building for the school elsewhere. The building structure was not the subject of sale. Anyway by a subsequent resolution passed by the purchase the land under the school building (since acquired and hereinafter referred to as the acquired land) stood transferred to Haji Abdulla Hajiwali Mohd Nagoria who sold the same on 10th Jan., 1958 to one Smt. Hajianibai Khatun Ibrahim for Rs. 20,000 along with the condition attached thereto. Smt. Hajianibai Khatun aforesaid gifted away the acquired land to the assessee through her declaration made in affidavit dt. 6th Sept., 1968. 3. Construction of a new building for the High School had though been started by the erstwhile State of Gondal yet it could be according to the assessee, completed in the year 1968. By her letter dt. 8th Jan., 1969 the assessee requested the Collector, Rajkot to put her in possession of the acquired land. By his reply dt. 20th Jan., 1971 the Collector informed the assessee that possession of the acquired land was with the Deduction Officer, Rajkot and that the same could not be handed over to her unless the new building for the school was complete. Efforts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 983 the State Govt. in its Education Department resolved to acquire the title to the acquired land by a consent award to be executed by the assessee in favour of the Govt. In consideration of Rs. 16,00,000. Notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was accordingly issued on 26th Aug., 1983 which was subsequently modified by Notification dt. 5th Sept., 1983. 8. On 12th Sept., 1983 the assessee executed the required agreement under s. 11(2) of the L.A. Act. 1894 as required by the Govt. Resolution dt. 30th July, 1983. This Agreement, inter alia provided that in case of assessee's title to the acquired land becoming subject of dispute by any adverse claim the assessee would refund the amount of Rs. 16,00,000 to the Govt. with interest at 4.50 per cent p.a., that the above amount would be recoverable as land revenue and that the assessee would be barred from availing his right to Court reference under s. 18 of the L.A. Act 1894. The City Survey Supdt., Dhoraji also passed his resolution on 16th Sept., 1983 recognising assessee's title to the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajkot thus acquired the land in question by his order dt. 20th Sept., 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant first challenged the very validity of the notices issued by Commissioner on the ground that these were not based on the material on record before the WTO. It was pointed out that in the notices it was mentioned that in view of the award declared by the High Court at Rs. 16,00,000 the acquired land had been undervalued in the returns. According to Mr. J.P. Shagh that was not the position before the WTO and, therefore, the Commissioner should not have set aside the assessments on the basis of material not forming part of the record of the WTO. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Tribunal's order in Smt. Vasantikaben J. Dave vs. ITO (1988) 76 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 121 : (1989) 28 ITD 220(Ahd). 12. The learned Deptl. Representative on the other hand supported the order under appeal and submitted that the notices issued by the Commissioners in these cases suffered no infirmity or defect and if there was any that stood regularised by assessee's never raising any objection in that behalf and surrendering to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner based on such notices. We find much force in the arguments of the learned Deptt. Representative. 13. In the notices issued the learned Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kul Corporation's case (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj) and Ahmedabad 'C' decision dt. 28th Nov., 1988 in the case of India Gelatine Chemicals Ltd. for asst. yr. 1982-83 (ITA Nos. 1638 1639/Ahd 86) and the case of Suresh Kumar vs. ITO (1986) 24 TTJ 55 (All). 16. It was also urged by the learned DR that the reopening of the assessment for asst. yr. 1980-81 was not challenged by the assessee and that reopened assessments for other several years were pending before different authorities. The learned DR submitted that under such circumstances these appeals be blocked for a year or two. 17. In rejoinder Mr. Shah submitted that the commissioner did neither indicate in the notices issued by him nor in the impugned order that he intended to set aside or has set aside the assessments on the ground of not conducting proper enquiry by the WTO. Mr. Shah pointed out that the valuation report dt. 3rd June, 1980 had been filed along with the returns and therein relevant facts regarding the position of possession of the acquired plot and of no income coming therefrom, rather title to that proving expensive due to litigation, were clearly mentioned by the registered valuer. Mr. Shah Further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of possession by 5th May, 1980. Directions are not complied with instead the State filed the first appeal in the High Court. The High Court passed the consent decree on 16th June, 1980 directing delivery of possession of the acquired land to the assessee by 15th June, 1981. That could not be possible even during the extended time upto 31st Dec., 1981 Agitations started, strikes commenced and communal harmony threatened. The Collector, Rajkot had to issue a notification under s. 4 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 5th July, 1981 and the State Education Minister had to declare on 9th May, 1983 in the State Assembly that possession of the acquired land would not be handed over to the assessee. The assessee had to approach the High Court again through Misc. Civil Appln. No. 39 of 1982. It was on 8th March, 1983 that the High Court passed the oral order suggesting some sort of formula to sort of formula to so out the dispute and settle down the controversy by 7th Sept., 1983. It was pursuant to the oral order of the High Court dt. 8th march, 1983 that Notification for acquisition of the acquired land was issued on 26th Aug., 1983 under s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and later on amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's agreeing in the consent decree dt. 16 June, 1980 deliver possession of the acquired land to the assessee indicates her intention not to purchase the property. It was in fact much after the valuation date on 31st March, 1983 that the Govt. Had come out with the Notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26th Aug., 1983/5th Sept., 1983 after making up her mind on 30th July, 1983 to purchase the acquired land for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000. The agitations of the students and their guardians, the hunger strikes by girl students, the apprehension to communal harmony had in fact, left neither an open market for a willing buyer for the acquired land. There could have been no buyer to it save the State herself. And the State too was an unwilling buyer, as indicated above. The price paid by the State to the assessee on 24th Sept., 1983 was dictated not solely by the merits of the acquired land but mostly by the force of circumstances. The intention of Govt. to purchase peace and not to allow the communal disharmony, threat the law and orders situation appears to have played an important part in the payment of the consideration at the figure to the assessee. The Compensation paid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
