https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422475 An auction proclamation and sale of immovable property under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act were challenged for alleged non-disclosure of reserve price and non-compliance with the prescribed sale procedure. The Madras High Court found no violation of Rule 53(b), noting that the auction notice allowed inspection of terms and conditions from the department office or website, the defaulter had been given notice before proclamation, and no material irregularity in the sale process was shown. It also noted that the property was under third-party occupation, earlier auction attempts had failed, and the sale proceeds were to be adjusted against tax and related liabilities. The challenge failed and the sale was treated as valid. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422475 An auction proclamation and sale of immovable property under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act were challenged for alleged non-disclosure of reserve price and non-compliance with the prescribed sale procedure. The Madras High Court found no violation of Rule 53(b), noting that the auction notice allowed inspection of terms and conditions from the department office or website, the defaulter had been given notice before proclamation, and no material irregularity in the sale process was shown. It also noted that the property was under third-party occupation, earlier auction attempts had failed, and the sale proceeds were to be adjusted against tax and related liabilities. The challenge failed and the sale was treated as valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422475