| Case ID |
36ad427c-b968-483d-aed6-de8787fec2cd |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 4 OF 1978 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 11, 1986 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the initiation of acquisition proceedings for immovable property is valid upon publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under section 269D(1). Procedural defects in serving notices under section 269D(2) do not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority and do not nullify the proceedings. The Tribunal's earlier decision that the acquisition proceedings were null and void due to non-compliance with section 269D(2) was overturned. The case was remitted to the Tribunal for a merits-based decision, affirming that the primary initiation of the proceedings was complete with the Gazette publication, regardless of subsequent notice failures. |
| Summary |
In the case of IT Appeal No. 4 of 1978, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the procedural intricacies surrounding the acquisition of immovable property under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the non-compliance of section 269D(2), which mandates the service of notices to parties involved in a transaction. The court clarified that the publication of the preliminary notice in the Official Gazette under section 269D(1) is sufficient to initiate acquisition proceedings. This decision aligns with the precedent set in CIT v. Amrit Sports Industries, reinforcing that procedural deficiencies in notice service do not invalidate the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements while recognizing that certain procedural lapses do not vitiate the entire acquisition process. This ruling is significant for tax law practitioners and property owners, as it clarifies the legal framework governing property acquisitions and the implications of notice compliance. Legal professionals should note the distinction between jurisdictional and procedural requirements in acquisition cases, ensuring that notices are properly served to avoid challenges. This decision has implications for future cases involving the acquisition of properties under tax regulations. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.P. Goyal,
Pritpal Singh
|
| Lawyers |
Ashok Bhan,
Ajay Mital
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Mela Singh
|
| Citations |
1986 SLD 1759,
(1986) 161 ITR 78
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Amrit Sports Industries [1983] 144 ITR 113 (Punj. & Har.) (FB)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
269D(1),
269D(2),
269H
|