AMARCHAND JAINARAIN AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision given by Pendse, J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 952 of 1978. The main point that is urged in the petition pertains to the time as to when the Competent Authority can exercise powers under S. 269C, IT Act, 1961. By the time the petition reached hearing before the learned single Judge the matter was not res integra and it was concluded against the petitioner following the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. These decisions have been referred to in para 9 of the judgment of the learned single Judge. The petitioner was contending that the effective date for exercise of powers under S. 269C is not the date of registration but the date of execution of the document. The contention, however, has been specifically negatived by both Delhi and Andhra Pradesh High Courts.

(2.) IN Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (1974) 95 ITR 197 (Del) :

(3.) AS far as this High Court is concerned, it is well settled that for the purpose of construing and applying Central enactments, in particular tax Acts such as IT Act, 1961, the High Court should as far as possible accept the decisions given on similar points by other High Courts leaving it to the aggrieved party to go higher. Following the aforesaid principle it will have to be held that the decision of the learned single Judge suffers from no infirmity and is required to be confirmed.