Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1190 - HC - Income TaxRecovery proceedings - attachment of property - order u/s 281 of the Income Tax Act - investigation by Tax Recovery Officer - void transfer of property - adequate consideration - Held that:- Under the unamended provision, which was considered in Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade [1981 (1) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the revenue should go to the Civil Court and first establish that there was an intention to defraud the revenue. Once this is established, the burden will get shifted to the transferee to show, as per the proviso that the transfer was for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the proceeding. But under the amended provision, the question of mens rea or intention to defraud does not arise. Hence, the entire burden to show that the transfer falls within the two clauses of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 281 is now upon the assessee under the amended provision. Hence, it is up to the assessee under the amended provision, to go to the Civil Court and establish that his case falls under the proviso. Thus the petitioner cannot take shelter under the decision of the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade. Having come to know of the fact that the assessee is due to pay arrears of tax and having got the application for a Certificate under Section 230A rejected, the petitioner clearly took a chance by going ahead with the purchase. Therefore, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to have the order of attachment and the order declaring the sale to be void set aside by this Court. As we have pointed out in the first part of the order, the order declaring the sale to be void was passed in the year 2005. The petitioner did not come to Court immediately. She came to Court only after the issue of an order of attachment. - Writ petition lacks merits.
|