9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared in the said proceeding and submitted before defendant No. 2 that the proceeding was not maintainable as there had been no transfer in favour of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2, however, rejected the objection of the plaintiff and passed final orders under the said Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed the present suit after serving due notice under section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a declaration that the disputed property belongs to the plaintiff and is not liable to be proceeded against in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement alleging therein that the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in respect of a double-storeyed building standing on the disputed land for a consideration of Rs. 20,000 and, in the sale deed itself, it was acknowledged that he had received the consideration money from defendant No. 3 earlier. As the market value of the property was more than rupees one lakh and defendant No. 2 was prima facie satisfied that the property transferred was undervalued, he issued a notice under section 269D of the Income-tax Act. The proceeding was initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the plaintiff being beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the civil court, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. It is this decision which is being assailed in this appeal by the plaintiff. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, raises the only contention that the decision of the Tribunal on the collateral fact on the existence of which the Tribunal got jurisdiction to decide other questions is not conclusive and the civil court has always the jurisdiction to examine whether the Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction unless the power of the civil court is expressly taken away. Since 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 to examine the validity of an order in the acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Incometax Act, the civil court will have the jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the collateral fact for conferring jurisdiction on the special tribunal existed or not. Thus, the question whether there was a valid transfer or not would be amenable to the scrutiny of the civil court and the Subordinate Judge erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quoted hereinbelow in extenso with the two provisos : "269C. Immovable property in respect of which proceedings for acquisition may be taken.-(1) Where the competent authority has reason to believe that any immovable property of a fair market value exceeding one hundred thousand rupees has been transferred by a person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferor) to another person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferee) for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under this Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer ; or (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the competent authority may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Benudhar Dalai v. State of Orissa, AIR 1958 Orissa 197 ; ILR 1958 Cuttack 417, wherein this court, on examining the provisions of section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, came to hold that the finding of the Collector under the said Act as to whether the lease was made on or after January 1, 1946, could be examined in a civil court and the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred to that extent, since the Collector, under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, gets jurisdiction to annul a lease under section 5(i) of the said Act only when the lease is executed after January 1, 1946. Mr. Mohanty also relies upon two other decisions, namely, Smt. Lalita Todi v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 40 (Pat) and Abdus Samat Haji Adam Kantharia v. Union of India [1982] 135 ITR 177 (Bom). In the Patna case, the order of the competent authority under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, had been assailed before the High Court under section 269H of the said Chapter XXA which provided an appeal to: the High Court against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under section 269G and, in that appeal, the High Court examined the correctness of the findings of the competent authority. We fail to understand h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further of do something more. When the Legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction, they also have to consider, whatever jurisdiction they give them, whether there shall be any appeal from their decision, for otherwise there will be none. In the second of the two cases I have mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, because the Legislature gave them jurisdiction to determine all the facts; including the existence of the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends ; and if they were given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal being given, there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdiction." In the case of Sashibhushan Rath v. State of Orissa [1973] 39 Cut LT 530, a Bench of this court was examining certain provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, and, in that connection, it also examined the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the tribunals." It was also observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court was not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down applied. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this court, on examining the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, came to hold that the remedies normally associated with actions in a civil court had been prescribed in the statute in sections 273A, 274 and 344 and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court had been impliedly barred. Since, admittedly, there is no express bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of orders passed under Chapter XXA in section 293 of the Income-tax Act, we would now examine the provisions contained in Chapter XXA itself to find out whether the theory of implied bar can be applied or not. Under section 269C, if preconditions prescribed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be determined by the Tribunal so constituted and the remedies which were normally associated with the actions in the civil court were prescribed by the same statute itself. Since adequate remedy has been provided for in the statute itself and the Tribunal under the Act has been empowered to do what a civil court would do in a civil suit, the jurisdiction of the civil court must be held to be excluded when the statute has given finality to the orders passed by the Tribunals under the Act. It is to be noted in this connection that the plaintiff, against the order of the Competent Authority, had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and, being unsuccessful there, never invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 269H and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court again to assail the validity of the orders of the Competent Authority under the Income-tax Act. We may also at this stage note that section 269Q provides that Chapter XX-A will not apply to transfer to relatives when such transfer is made on account of love and affection even though for consideration far less than its fair market value if a recital to that effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
