Back
1986 Supreme(Del) 199
High Court Of Delhi
SATYA NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1174 of 1973
Decided On : 05/05/1986
M.M.Sudan, R.C.PANDEY, VAZIR SINGH, Y.K.SABHARVAL
A notice issued under Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the acquisition of immovable property must be published in the Official Gazette before it can be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 269-D.
Headnote:
INCOME TAX - ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - NOTICE - PUBLICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE - REQUIREMENT - NON-COMPLIANCE - NOTICE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED - SECTION 269-D, INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the notice issued by the Income Tax authorities under Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the acquisition of immovable property, on the ground that it was not published in the Official Gazette as required by the statute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notice issued by the Income Tax authorities was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was not published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the notice could not be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 269-D for the acquisition of the property.
Issues: Whether the notice issued by the Income Tax authorities under Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and could be the basis for initiating proceedings for the acquisition of immovable property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly stated that the proceedings for acquisition of immovable property could only be initiated by a notice published in the Official Gazette. The Court held that the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette was mandatory and non-compliance with this requirement rendered the notice invalid.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned notice issued by the Income Tax authorities as it was not published in the Official Gazette, and therefore, could not be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 269-D for the acquisition of the property.
( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner Satya Narain Prakash Punj seeks quashing of notice No. IAC;acq-2/c-6/73-74/3199, dated 10-8-1973, Annexure D to the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner and respondents 4 to 20 had purchased property bearing No. 10, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi from Dr. Kami Singhji. The property comprises of land admeasuring 2. 60 acres or 12,584 Sq. yards (or thereabout ). The sale deed dated 5-2-1973 with respect to the transaction was resistered as No. 798 in Additional Book No. I, Vol. No. 3068 on pases 1 to 97 on 6-2-1973.
( 3 ) THE writ petition came for admission on 6-9-1973 on which date the following order was passed by this Court :-
"6. 9. 73. Mr. T. N. Sethi with Mr. S. K. Dholakia and Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal. Show cause notice to respondents No. 1 and 2. Notice of stay application for 8-10-73. Proceeding before the competent authority to be stayed in the meanwhile. Notice of stay application dated 6-9-73 also lor the same date. No fresh publication to be made in the meanwhile. Notices dasti. sd/- P. N. Khanna J. sd/- M. R. A. Ansari J. "
( 4 ) THE impugned notice was dated 10-8-1973. It is stated in the petition that it was posted on 28-8-1973. Main contention is that the impugned notice, not being in accordance with the provisions of Section 269-D of the Income Tax Act. 1961, as amended by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act. 1972- (Act No. 45 of 1972), the same cannot be the basis of initiation of the proceedings under Section 269-D for acquisition of No. 10, Prithvi Raj Road. It is also stated in the writ petition that the notice was received by the petitioner on 4-9-1973.
THE writ petition No. 1174/73 was also filed on 4-9-1973.
( 5 ) SECTION 269-D of the Income Tax Act, as amended reads as under :-
"269-D. (1) The competent authority shall initiate proceedings for the acquisition, under this Chapter, of any immovable property REFERRED TO to in Section 269- C 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), (or, as the case may be. Section 269 AB) : Provided further that :- (a) in a case where it is determined under sub-section (4) of section 269 B by the competent authority who has initiated proceedings tor the acquisition of any immovable property under this Chapter or by the Board that such competent authority has no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings, the competent authority having jurisdiction may initiate such proceedings within :- (i) the period of nine months specified in the foregoing proviso, or (ii) a period of thirty days from the date of such determination, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case where proceedings for the acquisition of any immovable property under this chapter could not be initiated during any period of time by reason of any injunction or order of, any court prohibiting the initiation of such proceedings or preventing the examination of documents or other materials required to be examined for the purpose of determining whether such 339 proceedings should be intiated, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made and the day on which it was withdrawn shall be excluded in computing the period during which such proceedings may be initiated under this sub-section. (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 :
