9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. This appeal has been filed under section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch "A", New Delhi, whereby the property under acquisition has been released by the said Tribunal vide order dated May 21, 1990. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition, Rohtak Range, on the basis of screening of Form No. 37-G forwarded by the Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon, noticed that land measuring 159 kanal, 7 marlas situate at village Jharsa, Tehsil Gurgaon was transferred by Smt. Kaushlya, widow of Kailash Chand, to M/s. Unitech Investment (P) Ltd., 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi, for an apparent consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by the order aforesaid, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which has since been allowed vide impugned order dated May 21, 1990. It is not disputed that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed the order, the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, on the basis of the report of the GVO. The Tribunal, in fact, has quoted the relevant part of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which would clearly show that the primary reliance placed by the concerned officer was upon the report of the GVO. It would be appropriate to reproduce part of the order that has been mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The same reads thus: "In I.T. Acq. No. 2/Delhi of 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dropped, the very basis of the impugned order challenged before the Tribunal, ceased to exist. That apart, it could not be disputed, during the course of arguments, that the case could not be based exclusively upon the report of the GVO. The Tribunal has also returned a finding that examination of records would reveal that the competent authority recorded its satisfaction in view of the provisions contained in sections 269C and 269F(6) of the Act of 1961, yet, there was no specific order for the acquisition of the property under consideration. The findings of the Tribunal, as mentioned above, could not be challenged during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, we are satisfied, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
