TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 1975, for a consideration of Rs. 48,000 each. In respect of the first of the above sales, viz., the one dated February 28, 1973, a notice under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act ") was published in the Official Gazette on July 28,1973. Subsequently, notices were also served on the transferee (namely, Om Prakash) as well as a tenant who was stated to be in possession of the property, one Shri Kharbanda. In the course of these proceedings, the Department came to know about the subsequent transfers and thereupon notices were also issued to Piara Singh as well as Mool Chand and Bimla Devi. The Competent Authority eventually came to the conclusion that the property had been transferred by Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondents that Mool Chand, one of the respondents, had died about 5 years ago. Counsel also stated that he wanted to withdraw even from representing Bimla Devi. It has further come to our knowledge that Mool Chand and Bimla Devi also transferred the property to Sushila Madan on October 6,1978. The result of this development was that none of the three respondents to these appeals had any live interest therein. They have sold away the property and received the moneys in respect thereof and they will not in any manner be affected by the acquisition order that has been passed and is sought to begot restored by the Department. On a later date to which the appeals had been adjourned, the husband of Sushila Madan appeared. He stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, having come to the conclusion that these proceedings had been initiated within time and also having agreed with the Department that the consideration had been understated in the document in question, namely, the sale deed dated February 28, 1973, with the objects referred to in section 269F(6), was not justified in setting aside the order dated January 31, 1976. He submitted that the order had been passed after giving notice to all persons interested in the property including Mool Chand and Bimla Devi and that there was nothing in Chapter XXA which required subsequent transfers to be taken into account for deciding the question of acquisition. Counsel contended that if the order under section 269F(6) was justified on the basis of the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n used as one of the circumstances to justify the estimate of the fair market value of the property on February 28, 1973, at Rs. 43,000. Again, it is not alleged that the consideration of Rs. 90,000, set out in the transfer document between Piara Singh on the one band and Mool Chand and Bimla Devi on the other, was not the proper price for the property as improved as on that date. Now, it transpires that there has been a still later transfer in 1978 by Mool Chand and Bimla Devi to Sushila Madan for Rs. 1,20,000. This consideration is not only in doubt but proceedings have been instituted under section 269C in respect of this transfer and cleared by the order passed by the same Competent Authority under section 269F(7) on July 20, 1981. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific provision in Chapter XXA corresponding to section 281 of the Act which enables the avoidance even of collusive and fraudulent transfers not to speak of a case like this where the subsequent transferees have acted bona fide. In these circumstances, the question for consideration is whether in enacting the provisions under Chapter XXA, all these difficulties can be envisaged as having been taken into account and they can be construed as applicable even where subsequent bona fide transfers have taken place or whether, as held by the Tribunal, they should be construed in such a way as to restrict their application to cases where there is only the one transfer which is impugned and no subsequent transfer in respect of the property. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XA by the Finance Bill (now Act) of 1986. The Finance Act, 1986, has repealed Chapter XXA with effect from September 30,1986, and substituted a modified Chapter XXC enabling the purchase by the Central Government of immovable property in certain cases of transfer. The circular reads as under: " With a view to achieve early finalisation of proceedings under the existing Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Board has decided that with effect from April 1, 1986, acquisition proceedings under section 269C will not be initiated in respect of an immovable property for which the apparent consideration is Rs. 5 lakhs or less and that where acquisition proceedings have been initiated by issue of notice under section 269D, the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
