CIT HY.,ROHTAK vs. SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR

PDF · subscribers

ITA/10/1987HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012361198725 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue had conceded that the issue was covered against the Revenue by judgments of the Supreme Court in Mathew M. Thomas & ors. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 691, this Court in CIT v. Gursher Singh & another [1997] 225 ITR 725, and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sivan Soap Factory [1997] 227 ITR 126. These judgments established that the power of compulsory acquisition under Chapter XXA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could only be exercised in respect of immovable property where the apparent consideration was ₹5 lacs and above. Therefore, the ITAT's decision to set aside the acquisition order for land with apparent consideration below ₹5 lacs was upheld. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside the orders of the competent authority that sought to acquire the land of the assessee, Shri Gulshan Kumar, under Section 269H(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT's reasoning was that the apparent consideration for the land was below ₹5 lacs, which precluded the exercise of acquisition powers. The appeals were filed under Section 269-H of the Act. The assessment years are not specified in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the competent authority acquiring land under Section 269H(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the apparent consideration was below ₹5 lacs? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was incorrect. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the matter was covered against the Revenue by pronouncements from higher courts. Specifically, the Revenue acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Mathew M. Thomas & ors. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 691, this Court in CIT v. Gursher Singh & another [1997] 225 ITR 725, and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sivan Soap Factory [1997] 227 ITR 126 had held that under Chapter XXA of the Act, the power of compulsory acquisition could only be exercised if the apparent consideration for immovable property was ₹5 lacs and above.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

269H, 269H(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 25.3.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Shri Gulshan Kumar. -----Respondent and connected cases being I.T.A. Nos.11 to 13 of 1987 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. I.P. Singh, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.10 to 13 of 1987, as it is stated that all the appeals involve common question.

I.T.A. No.10 of 1987 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 269-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh setting aside the order of the competent authority acquiring land of the assessee under Section 269H(6) of the Act. The Tribunal held that apparent consideration being below `5 lacs, power of acquisition could not be exercised.

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathew M. Thomas & ors. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 691, judgment of this Court in CIT v. Gursher Singh & another [1997] 225 ITR 725 and judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sivan Soap Factory [1997] 227 ITR 126 holding that under Chapter XXA, power of compulsory acquisition could be exercised only in respect of immovable property where apparent consideration was `5 lacs and above.

In view of above, these appeals are dismissed.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 25, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →