https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28577 Non-service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) on a transferee entitled to object to proposed acquisition under Chapter XX-A was treated as a mandatory defect, because it denied the statutory opportunity of being heard. The transferee was neither served nor validly represented by the co-transferee, so the omission was not a mere technical irregularity. Section 292B did not cure the defect, as it cannot validate a complete absence of service and in any event had come into force after commencement of the proceedings. The Allahabad HC therefore held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in entirety. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:56:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28577 Non-service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) on a transferee entitled to object to proposed acquisition under Chapter XX-A was treated as a mandatory defect, because it denied the statutory opportunity of being heard. The transferee was neither served nor validly represented by the co-transferee, so the omission was not a mere technical irregularity. Section 292B did not cure the defect, as it cannot validate a complete absence of service and in any event had come into force after commencement of the proceedings. The Allahabad HC therefore held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in entirety. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28577