Commissioner
of Income Tax, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Pearl Mech. Engg. & Foundry Works (P) Ltd [2004] Insc
274 (16 April 2004)
S. Rajendra
Babu & G.P. Mathur G.P. Mathur,J.
1.
This appeal, by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 21.7.1999 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by which the appeal
preferred by the appellant under Section 269H of Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the order dated 16.8.1992 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, was
dismissed.
2. The
respondent M/s Pearl Mechanical Engineering & Foundry Works (P) Ltd., Ludhiana executed a sale deed of plot no.
427, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana in favour of M/s. Oswal Woolen
Mills Limited for Rs.10,05,000/- on 5.2.1980. The Government valuer. on receipt
of a reference from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, estimated the fair
market value of the property at Rs.18,31,000/-. Proceedings for acquisition of
the property were then initiated in accordance with Chapter XXA of Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and notice under section 269D
(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 15.11.1980. The notices
issued under Section 269D (2) of the Act were served upon the transferor and
the transferee on 10.10.1980. The competent authority, after hearing the
objections, passed orders for acquisition of the property. The appeals
preferred against the said order by the transferor and transferee were allowed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, and the order of the
competent authority was set aside mainly on the ground that the notices under
section 269D(2) had been served prior to the publication of the notice in the
official gazette. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Tribunal the Commissioner
of Income Tax, preferred an appeal under section 269H of the Act but the same
was dismissed by the High Court on 21.7.1999. The High Court has held that by
the publication of the notice in the official gazette proceedings for
acquisition of property were initiated and the service of the notice on the
transferor and the transferee under Section 269D(2) prior to the publication in
the gazette is meaningless and an exercise in futility rendering the entire
proceedings illegal and without jurisdiction.
3. The
main question which requires consideration is whether the service of notice
upon the transferor and the transferee under Section 269D(2) of the Act prior
to the publication of the notice in the official gazette in accordance with
Section 269D(1) of the Act would render the entire proceedings illegal and
without jurisdiction. Chapter XXA comprising Sections 269A to 269S was inserted
by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 with effect from 15.11.1972. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons shows that the amendment was incorporated to
counter evasion of tax through understatement of the value of immovable
property in sale deeds and also to check the circulation of black money by
empowering the Central Government to acquire immovable properties and to curb
the widespread practice of benami holding of property with a view to tax
evasion by debarring the real owner from enforcing his claim to such property
in a court of law unless he has declared the income from that property or the
property itself for purposes of income tax and wealth tax or has given notice
of his claim to the property to the income-tax authorities.
4.
Sub-section (a) of Section 269A defines "apparent consideration" and
sub-section (b) defines "competent authority" which means an
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax authorised by the Central Government under
Section 269B to perform the functions of competent authority under Chapter XXA.
Section 269B provides that the Central Government may, by general or special
order published in the Official Gazette, authorise as many Assistant
Commissioners of Income-tax, as it thinks fit, to perform the functions of a
competent authority under the Chapter and also define the local limits within
which the competent authorities shall perform their functions. The relevant
parts of Sections 269C, 269D and 269E, which have a bearing on controversy in
hand, are being reproduced below :
269C.
(1) Where the competent authority has reason to believe that any immovable
property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five 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, initiate proceedings for the acquisition of such property
under this Chapter;
Provided
that before initiating such proceedings, the competent authority shall record
his reasons for doing so.
Provided
further .. (Omitted as not relevant) (2) .. (Omitted as not relevant) 269D. (1)
The competent authority shall initiate proceedings for the acquisition, under
this Chapter, of any immovable property referred to in Section 269C by notice
to that effect published in the Official Gazette :
Provided
that no such proceedings shall be initiated in respect of any immovable
property after the expiration of a period of nine months from the end of the
month in which the instrument of transfer in respect of such property is
registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908).
Provided
further . (Omitted as not relevant) (2) The competent authority shall (a)
cause a notice under sub-section (1) in respect of any immovable property to be
served on the transferor, the transferee, the person in occupation of the
property, if the transferee is not in occupation thereof, and on every person
whom the competent authority knows to be interested in the property ;
(b) cause
such a notice to be published (i) in his office by affixing a copy thereof to
a conspicuous place;
(ii) in
the locality in which the immovable property to which it relates is situate, by
affixing a copy thereof to a conspicuous part of the property and also by
making known in such manner as may be prescribed the substance of such notice
at convenient places in the said locality.
269E.
(1) Objections against the acquisition of the immovable property in respect of
which a notice has been published in the Official Gazette under sub-section (1)
or section 269D may be made
(a) by
the transferor or the transferee or any other person referred to in clause (a)
of sub-section (2) of that section, within a period of forty-five days from the
date of such publication or a period of thirty days from the date of service of
notice on such person under the said clause, whichever period expires later ;
(b) by
any other person interested in such immovable property, within forty-five days
from the date of such publication.
(2)
Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority
in writing.
(3) (Omitted
as not relevant)
5. A
perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the proceedings for acquisition
of any immovable property under Chapter XXA have to be initiated by publication
of the notice to that effect in the official gazette.
This
is the mandatory requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 269D.
Under
sub-section (2) of the same section, the notice has also to be served upon the
transferor, transferee, the person in occupation of the property, if the
transferee is not in occupation thereof, and also on every person whom the
competent authority knows to be interested in the property. In view of clause
(b) of sub-section (2), the notice has to be published in the office by
affixing a copy thereof to a conspicuous place and in the locality in which the
immovable property to which it relates is situate. Section 269E enables the
transferor or the transferee or any person referred to in clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of Section 269D to file an objection in writing against the
acquisition of the immovable property in respect of which a notice has been
published in the official gazette before the competent authority. In view of
the express language used, the proceedings for acquisition of property can be
initiated only by publication of the notice in the official gazette and until
the publication is so made, the proceedings cannot be deemed to have been
initiated. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 269D lays down a
period of limitation for initiation of such proceedings which is nine months
from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer in respect of
such property is registered under the Registration Act. Therefore, in view of
this provision the notice in the official gazette must be published within a
period of 9 months from the end of the month in which the acquisition and
transfers were registered. Sub-section (2) of Section 269D provides for service
of notice (which has been referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 269D) upon
the transferor, the transferee and certain other persons. It further provides
for affixing a copy of the notice in the office of the competent authority and
also in the locality. The language used in sub- section (2) of Section 269D
does not expressly state that the service of notice upon the transferor or the
transferee can be effected only after publication of the notice in the official
gazette as contemplated by sub-section (1). A period of limitation for filing
objections has been provided under Section 269E, and it gives 45 days from the
date of publication of notice in the gazette and 30 days from the date of
service of notice on such person (transferor or transferee), whichever period
expires later. In view of this provision, the service of notice under
sub-section (2) of Section 269D upon the transferor or transferee prior to the
publication of the notice in the official gazette cannot cause any prejudice to
them as even in such a case they will get 45 days to file objections from the
date of publication in the gazette. In fact, the prior service of notice will
be to their advantage as they will get additional time to file objection. It is
true that in sub-section (1) of Section 269D, the expression used is
"shall initiate proceedings" which can also be interpreted to mean
that other steps including personal service of notice can be taken only after
publication in the gazette but the analysis of the relevant provisions and also
the scheme of Chapter XXA does not lead to an inference that the personal
service of notice upon the transferor or the transferee under sub-section (2)
prior to the publication of notice in the official gazette in sub-section (1)
of Section 269D would render the whole proceedings illegal and without
jurisdiction.
6.
Undoubtedly, the publication of the notice in the official gazette under
sub-section (1) of Section 269D is the very foundation for initiation of
proceedings for acquisition of immovable property under Chapter XXA and the
period of limitation for initiation of proceedings has to be reckoned with
reference to the said date. The competent authority gets the jurisdiction to
make an order for acquisition of property only after publication of the notice
in the official gazette. The word "jurisdiction" implies the Court or
Tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine a cause, and such Tribunal
cannot exist except by authority of law. Jurisdiction always emanates directly
and immediately from the law; it is a power which nobody on whom the law has
not conferred it can exercise. In other words, "jurisdiction" has
reference to the power of the Court or Tribunal over the subject matter, over
the res or property in contest, and to the authority of the court to render the
judgment or decree it assumes to make. It is in this sense that the publication
of the notice in the official gazette confers jurisdiction on the competent
authority to take proceedings for acquisition of immovable properties under
Chapter XXA of the Act. The service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section
269D upon the transferor and transferee meets the requirement of natural
justice so that they may file objections in writing against the action which is
proposed to be taken, namely for acquisition of property. Any error or mistake
committed in the service of the notice does not in any manner affect the
jurisdiction conferred upon the competent authority to take proceedings for
acquisition of property. The service of notice prior to the publication in the
official gazette is merely an irregularity committed during the course of the
proceedings and cannot have the effect of nullifying the entire proceedings
which are validly commenced by publication in the official gazette. In fact, no
prejudice is occasioned to the transferor or transferee by service upon them of
the notice prior to the publication of the gazette. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that prior service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 269D is
at best an irregularity but it cannot have the effect of rendering the
proceedings either illegal or without jurisdiction.
7. The
question posed here has been considered by various High Courts and the
decisions rendered therein may be briefly noticed. In CIT v. Amrit Sports
Industries 144 ITC 113 a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court,
after analysis of the provisions of the Act, held that sub-section (1) of
Section 269D of the Act is the primary and the main provison for the initiation
of acquisition proceedings and sub-section (2) which obviously follows is in a
way a subsidiary and a supplementary provision to the aforesaid sub-section
(1). It was further held that the initiation of the proceedings for acquisition
and the consequent assumption of jurisdiction by the competent authority is
complete by the publication of the notice in the official gazette under Section
269D(1) of the Act and consequently a procedural defect of compliance with
sub-section (2) would not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority
and does not vitiate the whole proceedings under the said sub-section.
In Smt.
Pritpal Kaur v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT 145 ITR 19, a Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court held that Section 269D(1) of the Act, requiring the publication of a
notice for initiation of acquisition proceedings in the official gazette, is
mandatory but the notice to be served on the transferor and the transferee of
the property need not be after the publication of the notice in the official gazette.
In Prem Chand v. IAC 153 ITR 774 a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has
held that the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for acquisition of immovable
property is conferred on the IAC by Chapter XXA of the Act and the orders made
by the Government appointing him as the authority to decide the cause. Every
error committed by the IAC in the exercise of his own jurisdiction cannot be
treated as outside his own jurisdiction and they are all errors in but not of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the errors, if any, committee by the IAC in issuing
notices under Section 269D(2)(a) before the publication of the notice in the
gazette was an error within his own undoubted jurisdiction and was not a case
of assumption of jurisdiction and the Tribunal in holding otherwise and
invalidating the proceedings on that ground was clearly in error. In All India
Reporter v. Competent Authority 162 ITR 697, the Bombay High Court held that
the giving of individual notices and locality notice are not jurisdictional
requirements, non- compliance of which must result in invalidating of
initiation of acquisition proceedings. It was further held that the manner of
service of this notice is only directory and not mandatory nor is it a
jurisdictional fact so as to deprive the competent authority of jurisdiction to
hold or initiate the proceedings. Similar view has been taken by Patna High
Court in Smt. Lalita Todi v. CIT 123 ITR 40 and it has been held that the
provisions of Section 269D (2) must be deemed to be merely directory. We are in
agreement with the view expressed in these decisions.
8. A
contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in CIT v. Des Raj 220 ITR 7 and in its opinion the Full Bench decision of
the same Court in CIT v. Amrit Sports Industries 144 ITR 113 did not hold that
even where the notice is served under sub-section (2) prior to its publication
under sub-section (1), the error committed by the competent authority is only
procedural and not jurisdictional. On this assumption it was held that such a
defect is one of jurisdiction and the competent authority cannot proceed to
make an order acquiring the property.
CIT v.
Vinod Gupta 221 ITR 213 is a short judgment by the same learned Judges wherein
they followed their earlier decision in CIT v. Des Raj (supra). In our opinion,
the view taken in these two decisions does not lay down the correct law as the
ratio of the Full Bench decision in CIT v. Amrit Sports Industries (supra) was
not correctly applied. Satya Narain Prakash Punj v. Union of India 160 ITR 693
is a decision by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court wherein notice
under sub-section (2) of Section 269D served prior to the publication of the
notice in the official gazette was quashed. For doing so, the Court relied upon
the dictum of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253
that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must
be done in that manner or not at all. As already discussed, the language of
Section 269D does now show that the service of notice upon the transferor or
transferee, as contemplated by sub-section (2), must necessarily be effected
only after publication of the notice in the official gazette.
9. For
the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the
High Court and also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, to the
effect that service of notice upon the transferor and the transferee under
Section 269D(2)(a) prior to the publication of the notice in the official
gazette rendered the whole proceedings illegal and without jurisdiction, is
clearly unsustainable in law. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the
judgment and order dated 21.7.1999 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and
also the order dated 16.8.1992 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are set
aside.
Back
Pages: 1 2
