|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 231 Records
-
1990 (4) TMI 31
The High Court of Allahabad rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The court upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, as the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing its return of income on time. The court found that the explanation given by the assessee was acceptable and that it was not a fit case for imposition of penalty. The court rejected the application as without merit and ordered costs to be paid.
-
1990 (4) TMI 30
The High Court of Delhi directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding setting off unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources when the business is discontinued. Citation: 1990 (4) TMI 30 - DELHI High Court. Judges: B. N. KIRPAL, C. L. CHAUDHARY.
-
1990 (4) TMI 29
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Gift-tax Officer to issue notices to a partnership firm under the Gift-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Gift-tax Officer to issue notices to a partnership firm under the Gift-tax Act. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to cancel the notices issued for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The argument presented was that a partnership firm is not liable to be assessed under the Gift-tax Act, and therefore, the Gift-tax Officer lacked the authority to issue the notices. The definition of "person" under the Gift-tax Act was crucial in determining whether a partnership firm falls within its scope. The petitioners contended that a partnership firm does not fit the definition of "person" under the Act, as highlighted in section 2(xviii).
The court was referred to the definition of "person" in the Income-tax Act, 1961, to draw a parallel and emphasize that a partnership firm is distinct from other entities included in the definition. The argument focused on the independent identity of a partnership firm and its exclusion from the definition of "person" under the Gift-tax Act. A previous decision was cited to support the contention that a firm cannot be treated as a separate unit for assessment purposes under relevant statutes. The court noted that the respondents, representing the gift-tax authorities, acknowledged the absence of a provision including a firm as a person under the Gift-tax Act.
Ultimately, the court held that the respondents lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the impugned notices against the partnership firm. The rule was made absolute, quashing the notices, but clarifying that the authorities could still proceed against the partner(s) of the firm without any limitation. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the jurisdictional issue. No costs were awarded in the matter.
This judgment underscores the importance of statutory definitions in determining the jurisdiction of tax authorities to assess entities like partnership firms under specific tax laws. The court's interpretation of the term "person" under the Gift-tax Act played a pivotal role in establishing the lack of jurisdiction in issuing notices to the partnership firm, highlighting the significance of legal definitions in tax assessments.
-
1990 (4) TMI 28
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the court for its opinion. The Tribunal was asked to draw up a statement of the case regarding the deletion of income shares and the acceptance of group partitions in a Hindu undivided family. The application was allowed with no costs.
-
1990 (4) TMI 27
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of the claim of bonus set on amounting to Rs. 5,11,000.
2. Non-admissibility of deduction for surtax liability in computing total income.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of the Claim of Bonus Set On Amounting to Rs. 5,11,000
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 5,11,000 set apart u/s 15 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. This sum was not actually paid to the workmen but was set apart as required by the statute. The Tribunal disallowed this claim, and the order was upheld throughout. The court examined whether the setting apart of this amount constituted an "expenditure" u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66, which defined "expenditure" as money paid out or away, irretrievably. The court concluded that the amount set apart u/s 15 of the Bonus Act was not an expenditure as it was only a provision for a possible future liability and not an actual liability. Therefore, the first question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Issue 2: Non-Admissibility of Deduction for Surtax Liability
The assessee claimed the surtax liability as an allowable deduction, which was disallowed throughout. The court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 936, where it was held that surtax is an additional tax on the profits and gains of business and remains a charge on the profits and gains of the business of companies. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of surtax payable in computing the total income. Following this precedent, the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Conclusion:
Both questions referred to the court were answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The reference was accordingly answered.
-
1990 (4) TMI 26
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the valuation of closing stock for its opinion. The second question proposed was rejected as not fit for reference. The application was allowed in part with no order as to costs. (Case citation: 1990 (4) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1990 (4) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Approval of the Scheme by shareholders and creditors.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements.
4. Fairness and reasonableness of the Scheme.
5. Public interest and tax implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956
The petitions were filed by Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Ltd. (transferee-company) and Hotel Pink City Pvt. Ltd. (transferor-company) under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the court's sanction for a scheme of amalgamation. The transferee-company was incorporated on May 2, 1970, and the transferor-company on April 26, 1973. The amalgamation aimed to consolidate resources, reduce costs, and improve financial stability and operational efficiency.
2. Approval of the Scheme by Shareholders and Creditors
Separate meetings of the creditors and members of both companies were convened to consider the proposed scheme. The meetings were held on July 10, 1988, and the scheme was approved with a modification in the share exchange ratio. Instead of five equity shares of Rs. 10 each for one equity share of Rs. 100 of the transferor-company, four equity shares of Rs. 10 each were to be allotted. The resolutions were passed by the statutory majority.
3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements
The court ensured compliance with statutory requirements by appointing chairmen for the meetings and scrutinizing the reports submitted. Notices were served to the Official Liquidator and the Regional Director, Company Law Board. A Chartered Accountant was appointed to assist the Official Liquidator, who confirmed that the scheme was not prejudicial to the interests of the members, shareholders, creditors, and employees of the transferor-company.
4. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Scheme
The court examined whether the scheme was fair and reasonable. The principles laid down by the Madras High Court in In re Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. and Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. were considered. The court found that the scheme was approved by a statutory majority, was fair and reasonable, and was in the interest of both the members and creditors of the companies. The value of shares post-amalgamation was found to be favorable for the shareholders of the transferor-company.
5. Public Interest and Tax Implications
The Income-tax Department raised concerns about potential tax avoidance. However, the court noted that the amalgamation was aimed at business consolidation and operational efficiency, not tax avoidance. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO, emphasizing that legitimate tax planning within the law is permissible. The court concluded that the amalgamation was in public interest, providing better facilities for tourists and generating employment.
Conclusion:
The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation with the modification in clause 4 regarding the share exchange ratio. The scheme was found to be fair, reasonable, and in the interest of the members, creditors, and public. The amalgamation was to take effect from April 1, 1987. The judgment emphasized that the scheme met all statutory requirements and was not aimed at tax avoidance.
-
1990 (4) TMI 24
Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to Tribunal for reference of questions regarding expenses incurred on marriage, interpretation of previous years, and consideration of previous year's order.
Expenses incurred on marriage: The first two questions raised by the assessee regarding the justification of expenses incurred on a marriage were deemed not referable to the court due to a limited remand to the Income-tax Officer for determining the amount received from relatives. The scope of inquiry was restricted to this specific issue, as per the first appellate authority's order, and thus, the questions could not be referred for opinion. The decision in Abhai Ram Gopi Nath v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 339 was cited to support this conclusion.
Interpretation of previous years: The Tribunal's decision on the interpretation of previous years for undisclosed income, specifically related to the expenses incurred on the marriage, was also not considered referable to the court. The Tribunal's refusal to address the order of the previous year (1975-76) in the assessment year under consideration (1974-75) was upheld, indicating that the third question did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific assessment year in question, and the reference was dismissed accordingly.
Conclusion: The application filed u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was dismissed as the questions raised were not deemed referable to the court based on the limited scope of the remand and the specific assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal's decisions regarding the expenses incurred on the marriage and the interpretation of previous years were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the income-tax reference.
-
1990 (4) TMI 23
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding taxability of a sum of Rs. 43,78,875 to the court. The petition was allowed in part and the assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 200.
-
1990 (4) TMI 22
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment and assessment orders.
2. Legality of the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c), 273(a), and 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Consideration of genuine hardship for waiver or reduction of penalties under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act.
4. Compliance with conditions for waiver or reduction of penalties under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Reassessment and Assessment Orders:
The petitioner, a registered firm engaged in the business of purchasing and selling dry fish, was assessed for the years 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80 by the Income-tax Officer (second respondent). A survey operation conducted by the Income-tax Department on September 11, 1980, led to the seizure of books of account from the residence of the petitioner's accountant. Consequently, reassessment notices were issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the years 1977-78 to 1979-80, and revised returns were filed by the petitioner disclosing higher incomes. The reassessments and assessments for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 were made, practically accepting the revised incomes except for minor disallowances.
2. Legality of the Penalties Imposed:
The second respondent initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 273(a), and 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act and levied penalties aggregating to Rs. 4,90,949 for the years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1981-82. Penalty proceedings for the year 1980-81 were kept pending due to an appeal regarding a technical disallowance. The penalties imposed and imposable for the five assessment years totaled approximately Rs. 6,90,949. The petitioner alleged that the enforcement of such penalties would cause genuine hardship and that the penalties were contrary to an assurance given by the then Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Seetharamaiah.
3. Consideration of Genuine Hardship for Waiver or Reduction of Penalties:
The petitioner filed an application under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act for waiver or reduction of penalties, citing genuine hardship and cooperation with the Department. The petitioner argued that the penalties would cripple their business and reduce them to penury, as the firm's net per capita income was approximately Rs. 12,000 per year for each of the 19 partners, with total liabilities exceeding assets. The first respondent, however, declined to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner, observing that the penalties equaled the firm's income for two years and that the reconstituted firm had taken over the liabilities, thus not causing genuine hardship.
4. Compliance with Conditions for Waiver or Reduction of Penalties:
The first respondent also held that the petitioner had not satisfied the condition of cooperation, as the firm filed false returns originally and only disclosed higher incomes after the survey operations. The petitioner contended that the revised returns were filed based on an assurance from the late Mr. Seetharamaiah, which was supported by evidence in a related criminal case. The court noted that the assurance, if true, was relevant to the question of genuine hardship. The court also observed that the first respondent had not considered relevant facts and had imported irrelevant considerations in deciding the question of cooperation.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the first respondent to dispose of the application for waiver or reduction of penalties afresh, in accordance with the law and the observations made, within two months. The interim stay of collection of penalties granted earlier was ordered to continue until the fresh disposal of the application. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.
-
1990 (4) TMI 21
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest paid to directors under section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of depreciation and investment allowance.
3. Rejection of reference applications by the Tribunal as time-barred and the maintainability of the applications under section 256(2) of the Act.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company, faced disallowance of interest paid to directors under section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act during the assessment year 1982-83. The Income-tax Officer added the disallowed amount to the total income of the petitioner. However, on appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the disallowance was deleted, but the Tribunal later restored the disallowance. The Tribunal's order was served on the petitioner on May 15, 1986, with the last day for filing a reference application being July 14, 1986. The petitioner filed the reference applications out of time, seeking condonation of the delay. The Tribunal rejected the reference applications as time-barred, leading the petitioner to file petitions under section 256(2) of the Act requesting a direction to the Tribunal to state a case referring two questions of law.
2. The Tribunal's rejection of the reference applications was based on being time-barred, not on the ground of no question of law arising. The absence of a provision similar to section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the current Act indicates a deliberate departure. The Tribunal's rejection of the applications as time-barred does not equate to a refusal based on no question of law arising, a fundamental requirement for maintaining an application under section 256(2) of the Act. Previous court decisions highlighted that applications under section 256(2) of the Act are only maintainable when the Tribunal declines to state a case on the ground of no question of law arising, not when the rejection is due to being time-barred. Therefore, the applications for references filed by the petitioner under section 256(2) of the Act were deemed not competent and maintainable, leading to their dismissal.
3. The court referenced previous decisions such as S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 179 (P & H) and Govind Singh Bhagwan Singh v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 214 (All) to support the conclusion that applications under section 256(2) of the Act are not maintainable when the rejection is based on being time-barred rather than on the ground of no question of law arising. The court emphasized the distinction between the provisions of the current Act and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the maintainability of reference applications in such cases. Ultimately, the court held that the reference applications filed by the petitioner were not competent and deserved dismissal, along with costs awarded to the respondent.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues related to the disallowance of interest, depreciation, and investment allowance, as well as the rejection of reference applications based on being time-barred, highlighting the legal reasoning and precedents considered by the court in arriving at its decision.
-
1990 (4) TMI 20
Issues:
1. Applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 to include gifted amounts in the principal value of the deceased's estate.
2. Interpretation of possession and enjoyment of gifted property by the donor in a partnership context.
3. Comparison of previous Supreme Court judgments on the application of section 10 of the Act to gifted amounts.
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 could be invoked to include amounts gifted by the deceased to his son and granddaughter in the principal value of the estate. The deceased had made gifts to his son and granddaughter, which were invested in the firm where the deceased was a partner until his death. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty had directed the reduction of the principal value of the estate by the gifted amounts, but the Tribunal applied the principles from previous judgments and held that the gifted amounts should be included in the estate value under section 10 of the Act.
The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in CED v. Kamlavati, where it was established that mere possession and enjoyment of the gifted property by the donor in a partnership firm does not automatically trigger the application of section 10 of the Act. The court emphasized that for section 10 to apply, the donor must derive benefits clearly referable to the gift itself, excluding any benefits related to the partnership. The court also cited the case of Sanghi v. CED, where it was held that the donor's interest in the gifted amounts invested by the donees in a partnership did not negate the donees' exclusive possession and enjoyment of the gifts.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the use of the gifted amounts by the firm, where the deceased was a partner, was not directly linked to the gifts by the deceased. Therefore, the court held that the principles established by the Supreme Court in previous cases applied to the current scenario, and the gifted amounts should be excluded from the principal value of the estate. The court ruled in favor of the accountable person, stating that section 10 of the Act was not applicable in this case.
-
1990 (4) TMI 19
Issues:
- Whether profession tax can be deducted from arrears of salary paid to employees in a lump sum.
- Interpretation of the definition of "salary" or "wage" under the Gujarat State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976.
- Applicability of section 3 and Schedule I of the Act in the context of arrears of salary.
- The impact of the Karnataka High Court decision on the definition of "salary" or "wage" in the Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner, the Regional Secretary of the Food Corporation of India Employees Union, sought a direction to prevent the deduction of profession tax from arrears of salary paid to employees in a lump sum. The petitioner argued that the Act does not explicitly allow for such deductions from arrears of salary, citing section 2(g) of the Act, which defines "salary" or "wage." The petitioner relied on a Karnataka High Court decision that excluded arrears of salary from the definition of "salary" or "wage."
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the lump sum paid to employees represented the salary difference owed from August 1983 onwards. They referred to Schedule I of the Act, which outlines tax rates on professions, trades, callings, and employments. Section 3 of the Act establishes the levy and collection of tax, with section 4 placing the responsibility on employers to deduct and pay tax on behalf of employees before salary payment.
The court analyzed the concept of arrears of salary, emphasizing that arrears represent the unpaid portion of salary due at specific times. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that arrears should not be subject to tax deductions due to irregular payment, asserting that arrears are part of the salary owed regularly. The court disagreed with the Karnataka High Court decision, stating that the inclusive definition of "salary" or "wage" extends its meaning without restricting its ordinary sense. The court highlighted that arrears maintain their salary character despite delayed payment and are covered by the Act's provisions.
Ultimately, the court upheld the deduction of profession tax from arrears of salary, deeming it lawful and non-arbitrary. The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the tax deductions from the arrears of salary paid to the employees.
-
1990 (4) TMI 18
Issues:
1. Determination of whether business activities represent the Hindu undivided family.
2. Inclusion of investments in business activities in the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family.
3. Validity of Tribunal's findings on inclusion of business assets.
4. Identification of material supporting investment in business activities.
5. Determination of the karta's wealth inclusion in the net wealth.
6. Consideration of various additions as assets for wealth calculation.
7. Ownership and inclusion of seized cash and valuables in net wealth.
8. Interpretation of valuables as assets under the Wealth-tax Act.
9. Admission of additional plea for residential property valuation.
10. Consideration of statutory deduction for the residential house.
Analysis:
The application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act sought the High Court's direction to refer several questions to the Tribunal for opinion. The questions primarily revolved around the determination of whether the business activities conducted by specific individuals were representative of the Hindu undivided family and the inclusion of related investments in the family's net wealth. The Tribunal had previously declined similar questions for the previous assessment year, and the court had rejected a petition in that regard. The assessee argued that additional material could alter the Tribunal's decision, but the court found the reasons for refusing the additional evidence relevant, particularly noting the delayed submission of such evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Regarding questions 7 and 8, which related to the ownership and inclusion of seized cash and valuables in the net wealth, the Tribunal had combined these questions and referred them for the court's opinion. However, for questions 9 and 10 concerning the admission of additional pleas for residential property valuation and statutory deductions, the Tribunal clarified that the matter had been remanded for valuation, allowing the assessee to raise these aspects before the Wealth-tax Officer. Consequently, the court found no grounds to direct the referral of these questions, leading to the dismissal of the wealth-tax application.
-
1990 (4) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court to interfere with orders under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act.
3. Validity of the sale deed and the alleged sham transaction.
4. Interpretation of Section 293 of the Income-tax Act and its applicability to acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA.
5. Adequacy of remedies provided under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed executed in favor of defendant No. 3 was a sham and never intended to be acted upon. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable, holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court was impliedly barred in respect of acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The Subordinate Judge concluded that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act. Although Section 293 of the Income-tax Act did not expressly bar the jurisdiction of the civil court, the court held that the jurisdiction was impliedly barred. The essential relief sought by the plaintiff was beyond the scope of the civil court's jurisdiction.
3. Validity of the Sale Deed:
The plaintiff contended that the sale deed in favor of defendant No. 3 was a sham and that no actual transfer of ownership had occurred. Defendant No. 2 argued that the sale deed was genuine and had been acted upon, as evidenced by the document being produced by defendant No. 3's representative. The court found that the question of whether the transfer was valid or sham was within the jurisdiction of the special tribunal under Chapter XXA and not the civil court.
4. Interpretation of Section 293:
Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act of 1988, did not specifically bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA. The plaintiff argued that the civil court retained jurisdiction to examine whether the collateral fact for conferring jurisdiction on the special tribunal existed. However, the court held that despite the absence of an express bar, the jurisdiction of the civil court was impliedly barred.
5. Adequacy of Remedies Under Chapter XXA:
The court examined the provisions of Chapter XXA, including Sections 269C, 269D, 269E, 269F, and 269G, and concluded that the remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts were adequately provided for within the statute itself. The plaintiff had already pursued an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and did not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 269H. Therefore, the court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was impliedly barred, and the plaintiff could not seek relief through a civil suit.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Subordinate Judge's decision that the civil court's jurisdiction was impliedly barred in matters concerning acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act. The plaintiff's suit was not maintainable, and the remedies provided within the Income-tax Act were deemed adequate. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1990 (4) TMI 16
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court directed the petitioners to raise their objections before the Income-tax Officer and declined to exercise jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were instructed to file objections by June 1, 1990, and the Income-tax Officer was ordered to address the partnership concerns sequentially, with a six-month gap between each assessment year.
-
1990 (4) TMI 15
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question regarding the taxation of ornaments found during a search by Customs Authorities. The application was rejected for questions 1 and 2. Judge(s): R. K. GULATI, B. P. JEEVAN REDDY. [1990 (4) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD High Court]
-
1990 (4) TMI 14
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner set aside assessments for 1982-83 to 1985-86, directing the Income-tax Officer to conduct fresh assessments. The petitioner was advised to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal instead.
-
1990 (4) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the second respondent's order u/s 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in passing the order.
3. Whether the reasons for the order were adequately recorded and communicated.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the Order u/s 269UD(1)
The petitioner challenged the order of the second respondent deciding to purchase the immovable property situated at Santhome High Road, Madras. The petitioner had agreed to transfer 90.505% of his right, title, and interest in the property for Rs. 32,76,733.50 while retaining 9.495%. The impugned order, however, indicated the purchase of the entire property for the same amount. The court found that the order was passed hastily and without proper application of mind, as it erroneously stated the purchase of 100% of the property. The order was quashed on this ground.
Issue 2: Violation of Natural Justice
The court examined whether the principles of natural justice were violated. The second respondent did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order. The court held that even if the statute does not explicitly provide for a hearing, the principles of natural justice must be read into the statute. The denial of a hearing, either pre-decisional or post-decisional, violated the principles of fair play and natural justice, rendering the order void.
Issue 3: Recording and Communication of Reasons
The impugned order did not contain any reasons for the decision, and the reasons recorded separately were not communicated to the petitioner. The court emphasized that recording and communicating reasons are essential for a quasi-judicial order to ensure transparency and fairness. The failure to communicate the reasons deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to challenge the order effectively, thus violating the statutory requirements of section 269UD(1) and (2) and the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the judgment of the learned single judge, quashing the order of the second respondent dated March 28, 1988. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was found to be invalid due to the violation of natural justice and statutory requirements. The court also dismissed the related civil miscellaneous petitions seeking interim orders.
-
1990 (4) TMI 12
The High Court of Calcutta ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the cost of acquisition of tenancy right, citing decisions from various other High Courts and the Supreme Court. The question of law was answered in the affirmative for the assessee, with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
