https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5165 The hearing requirement read into section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act as a matter of natural justice was confined to pending or incomplete pre-emptive purchase proceedings. Where the purchase order had already been implemented, possession delivered to the Department, consideration accepted without protest, and the property later sold by auction to a third party, the completed transaction was not reopened by the later clarification in C.B. Gautam. Applying the principle that completed transactions should not be unsettled and that no party should suffer from an act of court, the concluded acquisition and auction were treated as final, and the challenge to the pre-emptive purchase could not succeed. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5165 The hearing requirement read into section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act as a matter of natural justice was confined to pending or incomplete pre-emptive purchase proceedings. Where the purchase order had already been implemented, possession delivered to the Department, consideration accepted without protest, and the property later sold by auction to a third party, the completed transaction was not reopened by the later clarification in C.B. Gautam. Applying the principle that completed transactions should not be unsettled and that no party should suffer from an act of court, the concluded acquisition and auction were treated as final, and the challenge to the pre-emptive purchase could not succeed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5165