Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 560 - HC - Income TaxRecovery proceedings - want of conversion of leasehold right to ownership so as to enable dealing with the land for liquidating demands outstanding against the estate of Nanu Ram Agrawalla, since deceased - revenue submits, no transfer can be permitted as barred by section 281 in Income Tax Act, 1961 as conversion means that the government land will be transferred by the government, to petitioners - Whether estate has income tax dues, to enforce recovery of which there has been attachment of the property? - HELD THAT:- The leasehold is likely to have restriction on assignment and transfer of the interest. Petitioners have only leasehold interest and therefore some interest in the land. They seek conversion of their interest to ownership. Petitioners have averred and there has been reliance by revenue, on the averments that on conversion petitioners will deal with the land to pay the demand of revenue. We have before us State claiming recovery of certificate dues from the estate and the revenue claiming recovery of their demand, already put in enforcement by attachment of the property. How far the attachment may be built upon for the revenue to deal with the land is doubtful. Real opposition to recovery by revenue is from State, who wants to recover their certificate dues. The resistance to conversion on contention that late Daulatram Nanuram Agrawalla had applied for conversion by putting in the fees and without waiting for an order of conversion is not a contention that can bear scrutiny, neither for its substance nor because it is in trying to supplement reasons given in impugned order, impermissible as declared by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] Opposition from the Sate being that the lease hold stands attached by revenue - We are convinced that in event petitioners obtain conversion, there will be better chance of recovery by revenue on proceeding with the attachment of land that would then be owned by the estate. On the grounds asserted in impugned order, State cannot sustain its opposition to the claim for conversion. In the facts and circumstances, in event revenue gives permission for the conversion, impugned order will stand set aside and quashed. Upon the permission granted under clause (ii) of the proviso in section 281, State will be bound to cause the conversion within four weeks thereof.
|