1993 (1) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's immovable properties for recovery of tax arrears should be lifted.
2. Whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the tax arrears of her father under the Income-tax Act.
3. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's properties should be withdrawn automatically upon payment of arrears.
4. Whether the garnishee proceedings against the petitioner are valid.
5. Whether the petitioner's objections to the garnishee notices affect the recovery proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, daughter of R. Bharathan, sought the lifting of the attachment on her properties for tax arrears. The Commissioner declined, citing the petitioner's vicarious liability for her father's arrears. The petitioner argued that the attachment should be withdrawn upon full payment of her arrears, as per rule 12 of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the attachment ceases automatically upon payment and ordered the proclamation of withdrawal.

2. The respondents claimed the petitioner's vicarious liability for her father's arrears under garnishee proceedings. The court found that the attachment was for the petitioner's arrears, not the garnishee amounts. As the petitioner paid her dues, the attachment was deemed withdrawn, and fresh proceedings were required for the father's arrears. The court emphasized rule 12's automatic withdrawal provision upon payment.

3. The petitioner contended that her objections to garnishee notices should halt recovery proceedings under section 226(3)(vi) of the Act. The court noted the petitioner's denial of owing her father any amount and his payments on her behalf. However, the court refrained from adjudicating on this issue, focusing solely on the attachment withdrawal relief sought in the petition.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the Commissioner's decision, and directed the proclamation of attachment withdrawal at the petitioner's expense. The court emphasized the automatic withdrawal of attachment upon payment and the need for fresh proceedings for any remaining dues. The court did not delve into the vicarious liability aspect beyond the attachment issue, granting relief solely related to the attachment withdrawal.