Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1983 (3) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the execution of the sale deed, admittedly, Jagdish Mohan was a minor. After receipt of Form No. 37G in respect of transfer of the aforesaid property, inquiry was made regarding its fair market value through an inspector of the I.T. Dept. The inspector estimated the market value on the relevant date to be Rs. 80,000 which was much higher than the purchase price of Rs. 45,000. On receipt of the report, proceedings for acquisition were initiated by issue of notices and by publication in Official Gazette. The notice was issued on December 5, 1973, and the same was published in the Official Gazette on December 22, 1973. A reply to the notice was filed by Smt. Phoolmati Devi alleging that the purchase price value of the house was correct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the submission of the respondent, Phoolmati Devi and allowed the appeal. It did not consider it necessary to decide the question of valuation of the property in question. Against this order, the Commissioner has filed the present appeal. Before us the controversy that arises for decision is about the effect of not serving on jagdish Mohan with a notice required by s. 269D, subs. (2) of the I.T. Act. This provision reads as under: "'The Competent Authority shall (a) cause a notice under sub-section (1) in respect of any immovable property to be served on the transferor, the transferee, the person in occupation of the property, if the transferee is not in occupation thereof, and on every person whom the Competent Authority knows to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the guardian of Jagdish Mohan can be his father, Jaggi Ram to whom, admittedly, no notice had been issued. It would, therefore, be seen that the case of Jagdish Mohan went unrepresented. He was not given by the Competent Authority a notice, which under the law he was obliged to do. When a statute requires that something shall be done in a particular manner or form, without expressly declaring what shall be the consequence of non-compliance, the omission of not doing that in the manner prescribed in some case has been held fatal to its validity. In the present case, the omission to serve notice on Jagdish Mohan appears to us to have vitiated the entire proceedings and would result in rendering the acquisition to be invalid in its entirety .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates