https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272309 A public auction confirmed by the HC was upheld because the sale was conducted after due publicity, fairly and transparently, and no irregularity was shown in the change of date or in the conduct of the auction. The objector was afforded an opportunity to produce a better buyer at the first offered price, but failed to do so within time and later attempted to introduce successive buyers with varying offers after substantial delay. The court found no infirmity in the rejection of belated objections under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and treated the repeated attempts as dilatory rather than bona fide. No interference with the confirmed sale was warranted. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272309 A public auction confirmed by the HC was upheld because the sale was conducted after due publicity, fairly and transparently, and no irregularity was shown in the change of date or in the conduct of the auction. The objector was afforded an opportunity to produce a better buyer at the first offered price, but failed to do so within time and later attempted to introduce successive buyers with varying offers after substantial delay. The court found no infirmity in the rejection of belated objections under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and treated the repeated attempts as dilatory rather than bona fide. No interference with the confirmed sale was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272309