TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property exceeded the apparent consideration stated in the instrument of transfer by more than 15% had issued notice No. CR 62/30399/81-82 dated December 18, 1981 (annexure G) to the transferor and transferee under s. 269D(1) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (" the Act "), proposing to acquire the property for the Government under Chapter XXA of that Act. In this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the said showcause notice principally on two grounds and they are (i) that the proceedings had not been initiated by the IAC within the permitted time and (ii) that the transaction being real and genuine, there was no justification to initiate proceedings under the Act. The respondents h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the facts stated by the IAC in her letter dated April 2, 1982 (annexure J), which means that the notice of acquisition had been published in the Government of India Gazette dated March 6, 1982. Even otherwise, I have no reason to disbelieve the correctness of the statement made by the IAC in her letter dated April 2, 1982. What emerges from the above is that the notice of acquisition had been published in the Government of India Gazette dated March 6, 1982, and that fact had been intimated by the IAC in her letter dated April 2, 1982, which has been served on the petitioner on April 5, 1982. On these facts, the question is whether the initiation is barred by time, which depends on the true construction of s. 269D(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in Shilaben Kanchanlal Ran's case [1980] 124 ITR 420, in which that High Court had dissented from the contrary views expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in Awasthi's case [1977] 107 ITR 796, without noticing the, ruling of the Supreme Court in Mayer Hans George's case[1965] 35Comp Cas 557 (SC); AIR 1965 SC 722, it must be held that the notice of acquisition under s. 269D(1) was published on March 6, 1982, and not on April 5, 1982, on which day the IAC intimated the petitioner. Earlier I have held that the notice of acquisition had been published in the Government of India Gazette dated March 6, 1982. When one computes the period from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer was registered, viz., June 15, 1981, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued under Chapter XXA of the Act, the correctness of which can be contested on all grounds that are stated in this petition and such other grounds as are available in law cannot be examined by this court as if it is an appeal and a different conclusion reached, at any rate, at this stage. In any event, it is open to the petitioner to contest the same on every one of the facts stated herein, the correctness of which has to be examined by the first appellate authority and also by this court in a second appeal. But, before that, there is no justification for this court to interfere with the same. When the petitioner approached this court challenging the very notice, this court had stayed the proceedings. In this view, Sri Rao prays for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
