Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
J. Raghothama Reddy vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 December, 1991 cites

Babu Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 February, 1979

9. On question No. 1 in R. C. No. 122 of 1985, the submission of counsel for the assessee is that the long delay between November 17, 1966, when section 9(1) notice was published on October 12, 1973 when possession was actually taken, negatived the urgency for taking such possession. Counsel submits that such urgency is the basic requirement of section 17 and that having been negatived by the very conduct of the land acquisition authorities, vesting of the property in the Government pursuant thereto has to be ignored. Hid further submission is that if vesting under section 17(1) is out of the way, the provision which operates is section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides that possession can be taken only after the Collector has made an award under section 11 of the Act. Counsel, therefore, submits that the possession which was taken on October 12, 1973, must be treated as advance possession without reference of the provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and such taking of possession has to be related to section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that in that event, the date of vesting would be the date of passing of the award, and, therefore, the order of assessment passed by the income-tax Officer would be the order which should have been passed according to law. In that event, counsel submits that there would have been no error in the proceedings of the Income-tax Officer and there would have been no justification for revision of the assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner, in revising the order and the Appellate Tribunal in affirming the revisional order of the Commissioner have erred in law. Counsel referred us to the decision in Babu Singh v. Union of India, , to the effect that if there was inordinate delay after the Land Acquisition Officer invoked his power under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, that may reflect upon the exercise of power under section 17 and it may indicate that there was no urgency and, therefore, there was colourable exercise of power. We are not called upon to consider the effect of delay intervening between the notification invoking the urgency clause and the actual delivery of possession covered by the notification. We can only answer the questions put to us on the case stated. We shall not persuade ourselves to stray out of the clearly delineated limits of the advisory jurisdiction as confined to the question referred to us under section 256 of the Income-tax Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 26 - D A Desai - Full Document
1