Appropriate Authority of Income-tax vs Jagdish Electricians India (P) Ltd., (2003) 264 ITR 468

UNDER SECTION 269UDReasons and material considered for tentative conclusion not disclosed to respondent

Catch Note:

The High Court was justified in holding that the show cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof nor the material considered by the Appropriate Authority in reaching a tentative conclusion, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated--Appeal, therefore, dismissed.

Ratio:

The High Court was justified in holding that the show cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof nor the material considered by the Appropriate Authority in reaching a tentative conclusion, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated--Appeal, therefore, dismissed.

Case Law Analysis:

Jagdish Electronics (India) (P) Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (2000) 15 DTC 315 (Bom-HC) : (2000) 242 ITR 326 (Bom) affirmed.

Application:

Not to current assessment year.

Decision:

In favour of respondent.3

Cases Referred:

C.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC), Shreya Builders v. M.D. Kodnani W. P. No. 1918 of 1993 and Laxman Ganesh Tulshibaughwala v. M.D. Kodnani (2000) 242 ITR 320 (Bom).

Income Tax Act 1961 s.269UD

ORDER

1. The High Court in a proceeding that arose under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compulsory purchase of certain immovable property on being challenged held (see that the show cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof nor the material considered by the appropriate authority in reaching a tentative conclusion was disclosed and, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated and thereby quashed the said notice. In doing so, the High Court adverted to the decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 and also other two decisions in Writ Petition No. 1918 of 1993, Shreyas Builders v. M. D. Kodnani and Writ Petition No. 2818 of 1994, Laxman Ganesh Tulshibaughwala v. M. D. Kodnani and followed the same. The latter two matters had been brought up before this court and special leave petitions stood dismissed. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same stand dismissed accordingly.