K.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner purchased a ffouse in sector 28D, Chandigarh, from Mr. Otto Oalwein, a German national, for Rs. 1,25,000, vide sale deed registered on 15th of November, 1972. THE Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1, initiated acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and issued notice under Section 269D(1) of the Act to the petitioner who raised objections. After hearing the objections, respondent No. 1, 6n 17th of December, 1973, passed orders under Section 269F(6) of the Act. THE appeal by the petitioner under Section 269G of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal failed. THE petitioner further took the matter to the High Court in appeal under Section 269H of the Act, which was admitted to hearing on 31st of March, 1975. During the pendency of the appeal, on 8th of October, 1975, the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, was promulgated, under which certain facilities were allowed to persons and assessees, who voluntarily disclosed their income and wealth. This Ordinance was replaced by the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as "Act No. 8 of 1976"). On 27th of November, 1975, the Government of India issued a press note explaining the circumstances under which the acquisition proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act would be dropped in cases where declarations in relation thereto were made under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. It clarified that where the transferee makes a declaration disclosing difference of income equal to the difference between the apparent consideration plus 15 per cent., thereof and the fair market value as estimated by the competent authority and also files an affidavit to the effect that he had paid the extra money as admitted by way of purchase consideration to the transferor, and that he undertakes to give evidence in his possession and co-operates fully in the matter of assessment of the transferor, and that he agrees that the affidavit may be utilised in the assessment of the transferor, the acquisition proceedings would be dropped. THE petitioner after the press note filed a declaration under Section 3(1) of the Act, No. 8 of 1976, making disclosure of the difference between the apparent consideration plus 15 per cent. and the fair market value as estimated by the competent authority. A sum of Rs. 7,194 was deposited as tax on this account and Rs. 1,370 were invested in securities. An affidavit to co-operate with the assessment of the transferor in accordance with the press note was also filed. THE Commissioner issued the certificate under Section 8(2) of Act No. 8 of 1976 on 22nd of March, 1976.
(2.) ON April 1, 1976, the petitioner moved the respondent No. 1 with a request that the acquisition proceedings be dropped and also filed the certificate issued by the Commissioner under Section 8(2) of Act No. 8 of 1976. ON 24th of August, 1976, respondent No. 1 wrote to the petitioner, letter annexure "P-5", that it was not possible to drop the acquisition proceedings as the acquisition proceedings have been closed in the sense that orders under Section 269F(6) have been passed by the competent authority and she had gone in appeal to the Tribunal or the High Court against those orders. Taking the appeal as an obstacle in the way of dropping of the acquisition proceedings as suggested in annexure "P-5", the petitioner withdrew the appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court, as such, on 30th of August, 1976. The petitioner again approached respondent No. 1, vide application, annexure "P-8" to the petition, to drop the proceedings as the appeal had been withdrawn from the High Court and that the order under Section 269F(6) had not yet become final. The income-tax department, vide letter dated 8th of October, 1976, annexure "P-9" to the petition, informed her that proceedings cannot be dropped, as they had become final. Through this petition the petitioner has assailed the orders, dated 24th of August, 1976, annexure "P-5" and annexure "P-9" to the petition, refusing to drop the acquisition proceedings, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings had not yet become final in view of the pendency of the appeal, provided by Section 269H of the Act, in the High Court. When the voluntary disclosure was made and the requirements of the press note were complied with, the acquisition proceedings had to be dropped. She has prayed for the issue of a writ for the quashing of these orders and dropping the acquisition proceedings. In the written statement, the respondents admitted the facts of the case. It was stated that the orders under Section 269F(6) had become final as the proceedings were closed with the passing of the orders and the pendency of the appeal did not affect the finality of the order under Section 269F.
(3.) THE questions which we are called upon to decide in this case are whether the press note envisages any stage where the proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Act are to become final and whether in spite of the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court under Section 269H of the Act the order under Section 269F(6) had become final and the acquisition proceedings closed with that order. The press note starts with the heading, "Subject:--The Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975--Clarifications regarding". It was issued under Chapter XX-A of the Act. It was to achieve the purpose of both the Acts. The press note relates to proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Act. The proceedings initiated under this: Chapter would become final only when all the stages given in it are covered, that is, objections and appeals, if filed within time, are decided. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the press note would apply so long as the proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Act do not become final. Press note itself does not contain any hint about the finality of the proceedings. The question of finality of these proceedings is to be determined in view of the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Act.;