1999 (7) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue's appeals dismissed, Tribunal's decision upheld on acquisition proceedings non-compliance. Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived.

The court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision that acquisition proceedings were invalidated due to non-compliance with ... Acquisition Of Immovable Property Issues Involved:1. Compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 269D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of acquisition proceedings initiated before the publication of notice in the Official Gazette.3. Waiver or acquiescence by the respondents in raising objections regarding the jurisdiction.4. Jurisdictional issues and their impact on subsequent proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of Section 269D of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The core issue revolves around whether the mandatory provisions of Section 269D of the Income-tax Act were complied with. The competent authority issued notices to the transferor and transferee on October 10, 1980, before the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette on November 15, 1980. The Tribunal found that the mandatory provisions of Section 269D were not adhered to, thus invalidating the acquisition proceedings.2. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings Initiated Before the Publication of Notice in the Official Gazette:The judgment references multiple precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in *Satya Narin Prakash Punj vs Union of India* [1986] 160 ITR 693, which held that proceedings for the acquisition of immovable property under Section 269D can only be initiated by a notice published in the Official Gazette. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in *Commissioner of Income-tax vs Des Raj* [1996] 220 ITR 7, reaffirmed that serving notice before its publication in the Official Gazette vitiates all subsequent proceedings. The court emphasized that the publication in the Official Gazette is a condition precedent for the initiation of acquisition proceedings.3. Waiver or Acquiescence by the Respondents in Raising Objections Regarding the Jurisdiction:The Revenue argued that the respondents had acquiesced by participating in the proceedings and thus waived their right to object. However, the court referenced *Commissioner of Income-tax vs Amrit Sports Industries* [1984] 145 ITR 231, which held that jurisdictional objections could be raised at any stage as they relate to the assumption of jurisdiction. The court noted that jurisdiction could not be conferred by consent, thus rejecting the argument of waiver or acquiescence.4. Jurisdictional Issues and Their Impact on Subsequent Proceedings:The court discussed various precedents, including *P. V. Doshi vs Commissioner of Income-tax* [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj), which emphasized that non-compliance with mandatory provisions renders the proceedings void. The court reiterated that jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and any order passed without jurisdiction is inherently null and void.The court also addressed the Revenue's reliance on other judgments, such as *Pratipal Kaur (Smt.) vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax* [1984] 145 ITR 19 (All) and *A. Premchand vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax* [1985] 153 ITR 774 (Kar), and found them unpersuasive. The court maintained that the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is mandatory and must precede the service of notice to the parties involved.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, holding that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 269D of the Income-tax Act. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and must be addressed as they go to the root of the legal validity of the proceedings.