The main legal point established in the judgment is that errors in the exercise of jurisdiction do not render the proceedings void, and the court emphasized the importance of applying the comparable sales method before resorting to the rental method of valuation.

Puttaswamy, J.

1. These appeals and cross appeals are directed against a common order made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (Tribunal), on May 6, 1975, in Appeal Nos. I.T.A. (Acq.) Nos. 17 to 20 and 23 of 1974-75 reversing the order No. CR 62/1808/73-74/Acq. (B) dated November 30, 1974, of the IAC of Income-tax Acquisition Range, No. 41, Bangalore ("IAC"), made under Chapter XX-A of the I.T. Act of 1961 (Central Act No. 43 of 1961) ("the Act").

2. House property bearing old No. 76/89, new No. 111 situated at Diagonal Road, Visveswarapuram, Bangalore-4 was owned by one D. S. Anantha Rao, respondent in I.T.R. No. 29 of 1976 ("transferor"). On October 10, 1973, by a registered instrument of transfer, the said Anantha Rao sold the same to Sriyuths (i) A. Kheemraj, (ii) A. Premchand, (iii) A. Hukmichand, and (iv) B. Parasmal of Bangalore ("transferees") for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. On March 21, 1974, an inspector attached to the office of the IAC reported the said transfer to the IAC. On an examination of that report, the details of the property and the apparent consideration stipulated in the instrument of transfer, recording his reasons thereto on the same or next day as required by s. 269C of the Act, to the effect that the fair market value of the property exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent., directed the issue of notices on that very day under s. 269D of the Act. While the notice issued under s. 269D(1) of the Act was published in the Government of Indian Gazette dated July 6, 1974 (vide Part-III(1) at page 4050), the notices issued to the transferees and transferor under s. 269D(2)(a) of the Act were served on March 29, 1974, and April 2, 1974, respectively. In conformity with this and other provisions of that very section, notices on the tenant who was in occupation of the building, on the notice board of the office of the IAC, on a conspicuous part of the property and the locality were also effected.

3. In response to the notices served on them, the transferees and the transferor filed their objections before the IAC, inter alia, contending that the appreat consideration stipulated in the instrument of transfer was the real consideration paid and received and the same was the fair market value of the property as on October 10, 1973. On an examination of the objections filed, the evidence placed before him and affording an opportunity of hearing, the IAC with the previous approval of the Commissioner made an order on November 30, 1974, under s. 269F(6) of the Act for the acquisition of the said property under Chapter XX-A of the Act.

4. Against the order made by the IAC, the transferees and the transferor filed appeals in Appeals Nos. 17 to 20 and 23 of 1974-75 under s. 269G of the Act before the Tribunal. Before the hearing of their appeals, the appellant sought the leave of the Tribunal to urge on additional ground to the effect that the proceedings initiated by effecting service of notice on them even before the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette was an invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the IAC and the completion of proceedings for acquisition were void at law and invalid. On allowing the said additional ground to be urged, the Tribunal by its common order dated May 6, 1975, has accepted the same and has allowed the said appeals, however holding against them on the fair market value of the property acquired by the IAC. Aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the fair market value, the transfers have filed I.T. As. Nos. 5 to 8 of 1976 before this court. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal invalidation his order, the IAC has filed I.T. As. Nos. 25 to 29 of 1976 against the transferees and the transferor respectively. In the appeals filed by the transfers, the IAC is the common respondent. In the appeals filed by the IAC, the transferees and the transferor are the respondents. In the course of our order hereafter, we will refer to the transferees and