9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of acquisition based on proper notice under section 269D(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to the acquisition of a property and the subsequent legal challenges raised by the transferee regarding the notice served under section 269D(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The property in question, a commercial shop, was sold by Tarlok Chand to Tarlochan Singh in 1975. The competent authority initiated proceedings for acquisition after computing the fair market value of the property. The notice of acquisition was published in the Official Gazette, and objections were filed by both the transferor and the transferee. The Tribunal set aside the order of acquisition, citing the failure to serve a proper notice under section 269D(2) on the transferee within the prescribed time. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the transferee had appeared before the authority and filed objections without the need for a formal notice under section 269D(2). The court agreed with the Revenue's contention, stating that the purpose of the notice was to secure the presence of the transferee to file objections, which was fulfilled when the transferee voluntarily participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order solely based on the notice issue. The court remanded the case to the Tribunal to decide on other grounds raised by the transferee that remained unresolved. In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for further consideration on the remaining grounds. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the transferee's participation in the proceedings and clarifies that formal notice under section 269D(2) may not be necessary if the transferee voluntarily engages in the objection process.
|
