1983 (10) TMI 73 - AT - Income Tax

Acquisition Order Quashed: Lack of Evidence & Procedural Lapses

Prayag Upnivesh Evam Awas Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition order dated 20-4-1983. It concluded that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings was ... Acquisition Of Immovable Property Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of initiation of acquisition proceedings under section 269C.3. Fair market value determination and valuation methodology.4. Compliance with procedural requirements for acquisition proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961:Shri S.K. Garg raised a preliminary objection challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He referenced two writ petitions pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that as a creature of the Act, it could not adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the provisions. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decisions in Kanpur Vanaspati Stores v. CST and K.S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras to support this position.2. Validity of initiation of acquisition proceedings under section 269C:The Tribunal scrutinized whether the competent authority had valid grounds to initiate acquisition proceedings. Section 269C(1) requires the competent authority to have 'reason to believe' that the property was transferred for an apparent consideration less than its fair market value with the intent to evade tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons for such belief must have a rational and direct connection with the material available to the competent authority and must not be based on mere suspicion or gossip.The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the IAC on 2-6-1981 were insufficient. The IAC referenced an Inspector's report dated 25-4-1981 but did not specify the fair market value in the recorded reasons. Furthermore, the competent authority did not have a valuation report before initiating the proceedings, as the reference to the valuation cell was made only on 16-6-1981. This lack of material evidence rendered the initiation of the proceedings unauthorized and void ab initio.3. Fair market value determination and valuation methodology:The Tribunal examined the valuation methodologies used by both the competent authority and the appellants. It noted that in cases where properties are tenanted and rents cannot be increased or tenants evicted due to rent control laws, the rental yield method is appropriate. The Tribunal also highlighted that even if multiple valuation methods are available, the method resulting in the least valuation should be adopted.The Tribunal found that the valuation by the Valuation Officer, which took into account the land and buildings separately, was flawed. The appellants' valuation, based on the rental method, resulted in a fair market value of Rs. 53,170, significantly lower than the apparent sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. Even if the land and buildings method was corrected to account for tenant payments and development charges, the fair market value would not exceed the apparent consideration by more than 15%, thus failing to meet the threshold for acquisition under section 269F(6).4. Compliance with procedural requirements for acquisition proceedings:The Tribunal noted several procedural lapses. The competent authority failed to provide adequate notice to all parties involved and did not consider relevant factors such as the tenants' occupation, lease expiration, and government-imposed sale conditions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the competent authority must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances before initiating acquisition proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition order dated 20-4-1983. It concluded that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings was unauthorized and void due to the lack of material evidence and procedural lapses. The fair market value determination by the competent authority was also found to be flawed, further invalidating the acquisition order.