High Court orders deletion of unjustified recital in Income-tax Act order; directs payment of 9% interest.

The High Court held that the recital "including unearned increase payable to DDA, if any" in the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unjustified and ordered its deletion. The court also directed the appropriate authority to pay interest at 9% per annum on the amount due to the petitioner, citing Supreme Court decisions supporting the claim for interest. The judgment primarily focused on the challenge to the specific order under section 269UD(1) and emphasized the need for orders to be based on relevant material and after affording parties a fair hearing.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dated November 21, 1990, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Declaration of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as ultra vires the Constitution.
3. Justification of inserting the impugned recital in the order under section 269UD(1).
4. Entitlement to relief for payment of interest on the amount to be paid to the petitioner by the appropriate authority.

Issue 1: Challenge to the impugned order under section 269UD(1):
The case involved two petitions, CWP Nos. 3853 and 3872 of 1990, concerning the same parties and seeking similar reliefs. The petitioners challenged an order dated November 21, 1990, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main contention was the insertion of the recital "including unearned increase payable to DDA, if any" in the order, which was deemed arbitrary and lacking any basis by the court. The court held the recital to be unjustified and ordered its deletion from the impugned order.

Issue 2: Declaration of Chapter XX-C as ultra vires:
In CWP No. 3872 of 1990, besides challenging the impugned order, the petitioner sought a declaration of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as ultra vires the Constitution. However, the judgment did not elaborate on this issue, and the decision primarily focused on the challenge to the specific order under section 269UD(1).

Issue 3: Justification of inserting the impugned recital:
The court scrutinized whether the appropriate authority was justified in inserting the contentious recital in the order under section 269UD(1). It was noted that the authority failed to provide any material or basis for including the unearned increase in the apparent consideration. The court emphasized that the order must be based on relevant material and passed after affording the parties a fair hearing. As the recital lacked a valid foundation, it was deemed arbitrary and ordered to be struck down.

Issue 4: Entitlement to relief for payment of interest:
Regarding the payment of interest on the amount due to the petitioner, the court referred to two Supreme Court decisions supporting the petitioner's claim for interest. Citing precedents, the court directed that the amount payable to the petitioner should carry interest calculated at 9 per cent. per annum from a specified date. The court justified this decision based on legal principles established in previous rulings by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case addressed various legal issues, including the validity of the impugned order under section 269UD(1), the entitlement to interest on the payment due to the petitioner, and the declaration of a specific recital as arbitrary. The court's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents ensured a thorough examination of the matters at hand, resulting in specific directions and resolutions for the parties involved.

---