https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18474 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling against the petitioner on all three contentions raised. It found that the property sold by the Tax Recovery Officer matched the description in the sale proclamation, the failure to adjourn the sale pending appeal did not warrant setting it aside, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes was not at fault for not waiving the period of limitation as the petitioner had not followed the proper procedure. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures and the importance of following due process in tax recovery and property auctions under the Income-tax Act. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:04:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18474 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling against the petitioner on all three contentions raised. It found that the property sold by the Tax Recovery Officer matched the description in the sale proclamation, the failure to adjourn the sale pending appeal did not warrant setting it aside, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes was not at fault for not waiving the period of limitation as the petitioner had not followed the proper procedure. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures and the importance of following due process in tax recovery and property auctions under the Income-tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18474