COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. HARIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated May 22, 1985, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 269h of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(2.) IT is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts which led to the passing of the order dated February 6, 1985, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Jalandhar. Suffice it to say that the respondent-Haripal Singh purchased the land measuring 66 kanals situated in village Kingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, from one Col. Hardial Singh, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 10,30,000 vide registered sale deed dated October 29, 1982. On receipt of information regarding the transaction, the competent authority initiated acquisition proceedings by the issue of notice dated June 9, 1983, under, Section 269d (1) of the Act of 1961. This notice was published in the Gazette of India, Weekly Part-III, Section I, on July 9, 1983. A copy of the notice was pasted on the property in dispute on June 18, 1983. Proclamation by beat of drum was carried out on the spot on the same date, i. e. , June 18, 1983. A copy of the notice was pasted on the office notice board on July 6, 1983. Notice was separately served on the transferor on July 8, 1983, and the notice sent to the transferee, i. e. , the respondent, was returned by the postal authorities on July 13, 1983, with the report "refused and returned". The respondent appeared before the competent authority and objected to the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of bar of limitation contained in the proviso to Section 269d (1) of the Act of 1961. The competent authority overruled the objection on the ground that, the proceedings stood initiated on July 9, 1983, i. e. , the date on which the notice was published in the Gazette of India. Thereafter, the competent authority considered the merits of the case and ordered the acquisition of the property. The respondent filed an appeal against the order dated February 6, 1985, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the publication of the notice will be deemed to have taken place on August 17, 1983, because it was on that day that the Gazette was placed for public sale. On the basis of this conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appeal and held that the proceedings initiated by the competent authority were barred by time.

(3.) AFTER having examined the undisputed facts which have come on record of this appeal and after perusing the decisions of this court referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal. A bare look at the language of Section 269d of the Act of 1961 shows that the crucial point for determination of the period of nine months is the date of initiation of the proceedings. The initiation of proceedings for acquisition takes place on the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. There is nothing in the language of Section 269d suggesting that the date of initiation of the proceedings would be the date on which the Official Gazette is made available for sale to the public. In the absence of any such requirement in the statute, we do not find any reason to accept the view of the Tribunal that the period of limitation has to be taken into consideration from the date on which the copies of the Official Gazette containing the publication of notice are made available for public sale.