Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings for acquisition under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were initiated within the period prescribed by Section 269D(1), and if not, whether the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis: Section 269D(1) requires initiation of acquisition proceedings by publication of a notice in the Official Gazette, and the proviso bars initiation after nine months from the end of the month in which the transfer instrument is registered. The governing principle applied was that publication is complete only when the Gazette containing the notice becomes available to the public. Since the notice dated 21 December 1974 was made available to the public only on 16 January 1975, the initiation was beyond the statutory period, following the earlier binding view on the same legal question.
Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were time-barred and without jurisdiction, and the challenge succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The notification-based acquisition proceedings were invalidly commenced after expiry of the prescribed period and were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: For initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, publication in the Official Gazette is complete only when the Gazette is made available to the public, and if that occurs after expiry of the statutory period, the proceedings are without jurisdiction.