COMPETENT AUTHORITY ACQUISITION Vs. LALITA TODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and connected appeals are directed against the order dated September 26, 1980, of the Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 269G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), setting aside the order, passed by the competent authority under Section 269F of the Act by which order the competent authority directed acquisition of property consisting of 17.85 kathas of land and building bearing house No. 567/409 (new)/316 (old), Circle No. 6, Ward No. 2 at Exhibition Road, Patna, which was transferred to the appellants in all these appeals in small plots by Vijay Kumar and others. The order of the competent authority is dated November 11, 1974, and passed after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar I, Patna, as required under Sub-section (6) of Section 269F of the Act.

(2.) EARLIER when the order of acquisition had been passed by the competent authority, the transferee filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 269G of the Act which were all dismissed and against that the transferees filed appeals in this court under Section 269H of the Act which were allowed by judgment dated September 25, 1978, by a Bench of this court and is in Smt. Lalita Todi v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 40. By this judgment, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside and the matter remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal to pass fresh orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. After the remand, the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order dated September 26, 1980, setting aside the acquisition proceeding. This time the competent authority is aggrieved and has filed these appeals in this court under Section 269H of the Act. This section authorises the Commissioner of Income-tax or any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 269G to prefer an appeal to the High Court on any question of law. It appears to us that these appeals filed by the competent authority are incompetent. The appeal could be filed only by the Commissioner or any person aggrieved. It cannot be said that the competent authority is an aggrieved person. The person aggrieved here will be the transferor or the transferee or any other person claiming interest in the property. Since we have heard arguments on the merits of the case as well we will not pass any final order on the maintainability of the appeal.

(3.) MR. Justice S.K. Jha, who wrote the leading judgment, was of the opinion that considerations germane to the ascertainment of fair market value had not been taken into account either by the competent authority or by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, directed the rehear the parties afresh after giving them a reasonable opportunity to adduce such evidence or such relevant materials as the parties might produce before it and decide the cases in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. The main contention that weighed with the Bench was on the definition of fair market value. On this S.K. Jha J., observed as under (at page 47 of 123 ITR) :