TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (6) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sometime in April, 1975, for a sum of Rs.36,500. The shop had an area of 28' X 28', and was situated on G.T. Road in a commercial area. The shop was in the occupation of Kishan Lal and Dhanpat Ram at monthly rent of Rs. 500 since May, 1974 for a period of 5 years. Working on the basis of bona fide annual value with reference to rent of Rs. 500 personal month, the Competent Authority reached a finding that the fair market value of the property should not be less than Rs. 85,000 or so. That the apparent consideration of Rs. 36,500 mentioned in the sale deed for the property was far below the fair market value. Accordingly, he inferred that the apparent consideration was not the true consideration for which the aforementioned property could ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 taken by him from Sh. Harbans lal and others. The sum of Rs. 300 paid by the tenant was taken by the mortgager towards the payment of the interest due on the mortgagee. Therefore, by the transfer of the shop under the sale, the transferee neither got vacant possession of the property. Therefore, the transferor claimed that the transfer having taken place in this background no one could pay a price more than what was paid to him under the agreement. Accordingly in his view the apparent consideration was the real consideration and there was no understatement of consideration in the instrument of its transfer. 4. The transferee also filed an objection. He stated that he had not received any notice so far. Having learnt from others that Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enge the legality of the order. By ground No. 4 the transferor has indicated the Competent Authority for not properly fulfilling the legal requirements as provided in chap. XXA, before a valid order under s. 269F(6) could be passed. By ground no. 5 the transferor has specifically raised the absence of service of any notice on the appellant under s. 269D(2). 8. In course of hearing the AR made a pointed and specific mention that no notice as provided in s. 269(D)(2) has been served on the transferee within the prescribed period of nine months. Accordingly, the proceeding for acquisition was invalid. For initiating the proceeding for acquisition it was imperative that Competent Authority not only caused a notice to be published in the offici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obtained knowledge and filed an objection. Therefore, his objection that proceedings was bad in absence of proper service of notice should be overruled and this should be decided with reference to merits only. 10. Having heard the rival view we are of the view that the preliminary objection stressed by the AR has great force in it. In absence of proper service of individual notice as provided in sub-s. (2) of s. 269D on the transferee the proceeding cannot be saved from the charge of being bad and invalid. The issue had been well debated in the decision of the Tribunal referred to by the AR in ITA (Acq) 13 of 1977-78; one of us was a party in deciding that appeal. In that appeal the Tribunal took the view that in absence of proper service....