Attachment of Immovable Property for recovery of tax in arrear - diversion of immovable property to escape attachment

Relevant Provisions:

Section 222,  Section 276, Rule 11 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Relationship:

Assessee in Default - M/s. Raja Ram Kishan Chand (HUF)

Appellant - SMT. MALTI DEVI, Daughter in law of Raja Ram

Facts of the Case:

It is not in dispute that M/s. Raja Ram Kishan Chand (HUF) was a defaulter of income-tax dues. In recovery of the said dues, the Department attached property No.110, Ward-7, Mohalla Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur. The attachment was effected on November 7, 1973.

The petitioner who happens to be the daughter-in-law of Raja Ram allegedly purchased the property No. 107, Ward-7, Mohalla Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on September 22, 1980.

She came out with the case that the said property No.107 was not the subject-matter of attachment order dated November 7, 1973.

Case of the Appellant:

An objection was filed by the present petitioner, namely, Smt. Malti Devi before the Tax Recovery Officer on the ground that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question prior to the attachment order and also that the property in question belongs to Shri Raja Ram in his individual capacity and the said property cannot be sold for the recovery of dues outstanding against M/s. Raja Ram Kishan Chand (HUF).

Shri Raja Ram also filed certain objections claiming the property in question as his individual property.

Case of the Department:

The case of the Department, on the other hand, was that the property No.107 was also the subject-matter of the attachment order dated November 7, 1973, and as such, any subsequent sale to her is void and illegal. The Tax Recovery Officer rejected the objection. In view of rule 11(6) of the rules as provided in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, Smt. Malti Devi, the petitioner herein, instituted Suit No.157 of 1983.

Observation and Findings of the HC

This being the legal position, the Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly held that the order of the Tax. Recovery Officer holding that the property in question stood attached in pursuance of the attachment order dated November 7, 1973, is conclusive and binding, which was also approved by the civil court.

Attachment of the property upheld.

For full text of judgment visit:

SMT. MALTI DEVI Versus TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANOTHER [2009 -TMI - 34129 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]