1990 (4) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... owners of a piece of land together with two buildings standing thereon at Forbes Street, Fort, Bombay. They demolished one of the old structures and constructed a new building in that place now known as Apeejay House consisting of office blocks, godowns and car-parking spaces. The building was sold to various persons on what is known as ownership basis by blocks and godowns. Certain portions were retained by the vendors for their own use or for letting out to tenants. All this happened during the period from 1967 to 1972. The blocks and godowns so sold could not, in law, be registered in the names of the persons who purchased them on ownership basis, the law being that the land and the structure thereon can be transferred to a co operat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73, but was registered on August 20, 1976, only. Notice under section 269D(1) was stated to have been issued on April 11, 1977, the notification to that effect being published in the Official Gazette on April 30, 1977. Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced arguments at length challenging each and every aspect of the matter. Since this court finds that the petition can be decided on the short ground that formation of belief as regards the third condition required in section 269C(1) is not satisfied, it is not considered necessary to examine other arguments. It is pertinent to mention that the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under section 269C is whether the Competent Authority has reason to believe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... could be either. This court had occasion to consider in the case of Unique Associates Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 114, whether the presumptions raised in section 269C(2) are available to the Competent Authority for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction under section 269C/269D. Following the Calcutta and Gujarat High Court decisions, it was held that the presumptions could be raised after valid assumption of jurisdiction without the support of the presumptions and not for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction. No doubt Shri Jetly pointed that the Allahabad High Court in Pushpalata v. IAC of IT [1984] 150 ITR 42 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sutlej Chit Fund and Financiers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT....