TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2014 the Jurisdictional Commissioner disposed of the petitioner's appeals in the form of grievance dated 13.4.2012 and 7.5.2012, in effect taking the plea of fait accompli by virtue of the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the TRO. We find that when the appeal provision is provided under Rule 86 of Second Schedule to the Act and the petitioner has filed such an appeal even according to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, then the Jurisdictional Commissioner should have decided such an appeal at the earliest. This not having been done in the present case, has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner as his grievance against the order of attachment passed by TRO is not being considered in appeal even though the Statute provide for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication by letter dated 13.4.2012 to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax making grievance regarding attachment of the petitioner's property and his bank accounts for recovery of income tax dues payable by his late father. The petitioner in the aforesaid communication did not formerly refer to his applications as appeals but set out his grievances with regard to the action of Tax Recovery Officer in attaching the petitioner's property as well as bank accounts. As there was no response, the petitioner by letter dated 7.5.2012 also made a grievance to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. On 10.5.2012 the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax addressed a communication to the Jurisdictional Commissioner to dispose of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed under Rule 11 of Second Schedule of the Act is a conclusive order. Therefore, no appeal under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule to the Act could be entertained; (b) No appeal has been filed from the order dated 25.9.2012; and (c) In any case the appeals which were filed in the form of grievance dated 13.4.2012 and 7.5.2012, were not formal appeals filed under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule of the Act and consequently same could not be considered. 8. We find that inspite of specific directions of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by his letter dated 10.5.2012 to treat the petitioner's grievance letters as appeals from the orders of attachment of the petitioner's property and bank accounts, the Jurisdictional Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 of Second Schedule to the Act and the petitioner has filed such an appeal even according to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, then the Jurisdictional Commissioner should have decided such an appeal at the earliest. This not having been done in the present case, has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner as his grievance against the order of attachment passed by TRO is not being considered in appeal even though the Statute provide for the same. The TRO should have in all fairness awaited the disposal of the petitioner's appeal under Rule 86 to the Second Schedule of the Act pending with the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax before disposing of the attachment proceedings under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
