9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to order of acquisition under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961 based on lack of service of notice under s. 269D(2) on all transferees.
Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order of acquisition made under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act, 1961, on the grounds of lack of service of notice under s. 269D(2) on all transferees. The order in question was passed by the Competent Authority on 26th March, 1982, following directions from an earlier appeal decision by the ITAT, Amristar Bench. The ITAT had directed the Competent Authority to confront the transferees with specific material before making a fresh order, leading to the current appeal. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the acquisition order was invalid due to the absence of notice service under s. 269D(2) on all transferees. However, the revenue contended that this objection was not raised during the earlier appeal process when the ITAT directed a fresh order. The Tribunal noted that any party can raise a legal question at any stage if it does not require further factual inquiry. Upon examination, it was found that one of the transferees, Sat Pal Singh, did not have a specific date of notice service, and no acknowledgment of service was on record, leading to a valid objection by the transferees' counsel. 3. Section 269D outlines the preliminary notice requirements for acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the importance of notifying all interested parties to enable them to challenge the Competent Authority's jurisdiction. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of strict compliance with these notice provisions to safeguard the rights of various parties involved, such as transferors, transferees, and other interested individuals. Failure to adhere to these mandatory provisions could render the entire acquisition proceedings legally flawed, impacting the substantial interests of the concerned parties. 4. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of individual notice service under s. 269D(2) to ensure that all parties with a stake in the property are informed and have the opportunity to contest the acquisition process. The judgment underscored that non-compliance with any mandatory provisions, as outlined in s. 269C and s. 269D, could invalidate the entire proceedings. The right of appeal under Chapter XXA of the Act allows any interested party in the property to challenge the Competent Authority's order, emphasizing the critical nature of statutory notice service in protecting the interests of all involved parties. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of proof of notice service under s. 269D(2) on one of the transferees, Sat Pal Singh, rendered the Competent Authority's order legally flawed. The judgment highlighted that the challenge in the previous appeal was limited to provisions of s. 269C, and the lack of notice service on a transferee was a separate, valid ground for appeal. As a result, the appeal was allowed based on the identified legal deficiency in the acquisition process.
|
