Chaturvedi, J.M. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed under section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the acquisition of the property being land measuring 79 kanals 2 marlas at village Jharsa, Teh. Gurgaon and as more mentioned in the sale deed registered at serial No. 2714 dated 12-8-1986 with the Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon.
(2.) Briefly the facts : The aforesaid land was owned by the assessee. It was transferred for an apparent consideration of Rs. 26,20,187. Notice of enquiry before initiating acquisition proceedings under section 269C of the Act was issued on 8-9-1986. On the said date reference was made to the D.V.O., Chandigarh, for valuing the above said property. It was valued by the DVO at Rs. 45,21,000. The valuation report was forwarded by him on 31st October, 1986. Another property in its vicinity was purchased by the Uniteck Industries Ltd. for an apparent consideration of Rs. 23,18,750. The amount involved was less than Rs. 25,00,000, but since this case was found to be connected with the case under reference and Deputy CIT (Acquisition) held that the view taken in the case of assessee will be taken in the case of Uniteck Industries Ltd. also, both the matters were referred to the DVO. The land area in the case of Uniteck Industries Ltd. was 70 K This land was also situated at Village Jharsa, Gurgaon and its value was also adopted at the rate of Rs. 113 per sq. meter by the DVO in consonance with the valuation done for the property under consideration.
(3.) SHRI Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before us that the acquisition proceedings were initiated, in pursuant to that on 7-11-1986, D.C. (Acquisition) issued the notice under section 269D of the Act. The acquisition order was passed on 23rd January, 1998. It took more than 11 years time to finalise the proceedings. This, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the fine norms of justice. The inordinate delay in passing the order may cause serious injustice to the citizens, where law does not stipulate any time-limit, it is necessary for the concerned Officer, to complete the proceedings Thin the reasonable time. The proceedings cannot be prolonged indefinitely. Reference was made to the following decisions : 1. Bisheshwar Lal v. ITO [1970] 75 ITR 698 (All.), 2. ITO v. Bisheshwar Lal [1970] 76 ITR 653 (All.); 3. Mohd. Atiq v. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 452 (All.); and 4. K. P. Narayanappa Setty & Co. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 17 (AP). Reference was made to the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Cyril Albert D'Souza v. IAC [1986] 15 ITD 685 (Bang.).;