Tarun Kumar Basu, J.
1. Although a large number of points have beentaken in this petition challenging a notice issued under Section 269D(1) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961, dated the 4th July, 1974, by which proceedingswere sought to be initiated for the acquisition of a property which is4B Jackson Lane, Calcutta, it seems to me that the matter can be disposed ofon a short point without going into any other issues. It appears from thesale deed of which the income-tax authorities must have had inspection andperusal that the petition for setting aside the auction sale by which thevendor of the petitioner acquired the property in question is pending andhas not yet been decided. In that view of the matter, it must be field that the question as to whether the vendor of the petitioner, Prokash Chandra Bhotra, acquired a perfect title to the property in question is still pending. Consequently, it will be obvious that the title of the petitioner before me would be dependent upon the decision of the appropriate court in the application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 97, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is pending.
2. In that view of the matter, it must necessarily follow that on the day when the impugned notice was issued, it could not be said that the petitioner acquired a perfect title to the property in question. In these circumstances it seems to me that the impugned notice is premature and cannot be sustained on this ground alone. I make it quite clear that I am not deciding any other question involved in this petition. It will be open to the respondents, if they are so advised or permitted by law, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner if it is decided that the vendor of the petitioner had perfect title to the premises in question.
3. Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee was added as a party-respondent in this rule on his own application and he has filed an affidavit in these proceedings. In that affidavit there are certain allegations against the present petitioner. As no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in answer thereto, it is recorded that the allegations contained in that affidavit of Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee are not admitted by the petitioner as well as by the income-tax authorities.
4. In the result, this application succeeds and the rule is made absolute.
5. There will be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the impugned notice dated 4th July, 1974, and to forbear from giving effect thereto in any manner.
6. There will be no order as to costs.
7. There will be a stay of six weeks of the operation of this order from this date.