Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 749 - HC - Income TaxRecovery of tax dues from the wife of deceased - earlier auction proceedings of the defaulter's property was stayed - While the stay order was in force the defaulter transferred the property - Subsequently, the Purchaser expired - validity of sale - The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, mainly concluding that the defaulter having transferred the property, did not have locus standi to maintain an appeal under Rule 86 - Held that:- Admittedly, the sale was on 12.5.1995. On 12.5.95 purchaser was declared to be successful and, therefore, she deposited 25% of the purchase money and thus complied with Rule 57(1). She ought to have deposited the balance amount within 15 days thereafter. Contention of the Department and the purchaser that the interim order passed by this court on 12.5.95 prevented the authorities from accepting the balance sale consideration within the 15 days period if accepted in favour of the Income Tax Department and the purchaser, that benefit can extend only till 18.2.2005 when the stay was vacated by this court. Then also, the Purchaser or it being the estate left behind by the Purchaser, who had expired in the meantime, his legal heirs, had the duty to comply with the requirements of Rule 57(2) within 15 days thereafter. The wife of the deceased Purchaser, who also held power of attorney of the other legal heirs of the deceased, did not deposit the balance amount within the 15 days period specified in Rule 57(2), even if the said period is reckoned from 18.2.2005, when the order of stay was vacated by this court. Evidently, therefore, there is non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 57(2) attracting the consequences of such default. This means that the confirmation of sale, ordered on 29.3.2005 is of a void sale and the sale certificate issued on 30.9.2005 being a dependent order is also void and is of no consequence. Any private alienation after notice under Rule 2 has been served on the defaulter, except with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be void. Sale admittedly was without the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer. Therefore, and as rightly contended by the counsel for the Revenue, the sale is void at least as against the Revenue. If that be so, insofar as the proceedings between the appellant and the Revenue are concerned, the appellant is fully entitled to maintain legal proceedings impugning the sale and the further proceedings. Therefore, this contention is only to be refuted and we do so. For all these reasons, we are inclined to think that the learned Single judge erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal is set aside and Ext.P22 order passed by the first respondent is also set aside. The writ appeal is allowed as above.
|