Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the order acquiring the immovable property under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act was sustainable in view of the inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings and the surrounding circumstances bearing on the fairness of the action.
Analysis: The acquisition proceedings were initiated under sections 269C and 269D, but the order under section 269F(6) was passed after an extraordinary lapse of time. The statutory scheme under Chapter XX-A indicates urgency, since acquisition results in compulsory divestment and payment of compensation under section 269J based on the apparent consideration. A prolonged and unexplained delay defeats the purpose of the provision, causes prejudice to the transferee, and renders the exercise oppressive. The record disclosed no cogent explanation for the deferment. The facts also aligned with the connected case where the valuation material and acquisition action had already been disapproved, reinforcing the unsustainability of the impugned order.
Conclusion: The acquisition order was held to be vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay and was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A are not completed within a reasonable time and the delay is inordinate and unexplained, the resulting order is vitiated as an abuse of power and cannot be sustained.