9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') stating that a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was due from the said Sri.Ramajanam on account of dues of M/s.Tirupura Bhairavi Math in Northern India (for short 'the Math'). It was these five notices dated 3-3-2006 issued by the TRO to the Banks requesting them not to pay money from the accounts of Sri.Ramajanam, which were challenged by the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha claiming that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) had been executed by Bhishma Pithamaha in favour of Ramajanam. On the writ petition having been allowed and the notices having been quashed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Income Tax Department to refund the sum of Rs. 18,57,999/- to the Banks along with interest at the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the details of the same would not be relevant for the purpose of this case, but the filing and pendency of such cases would only go to show that there were disputes pending with regard to the properties in question. 5. What is also relevant to mention is that the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha had never filed his return of income till 6-1-2003, on which date he filed returns of income together for six assessment years comprising of the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002- 03. In the said returns, it was for the first time that before the Income Tax Authorities the properties in question were declared by the writ petitioner, to be his properties. It was only after 2003, the petitioner- Bhishma Pithamaha started selling his properties thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lses account to be his money, but unless the person in whose account the money is in deposit accepts the same or comes forward and states that the said money belongs to such person, the said person cannot, on his own, claim right over the money in such account of some other person lying in the Bank. 8. In the present case, since the notices were issued to the Banks to draw the amount from the account of Ramajanam and pay to the Income Tax Department, it was either the Bank, or the said Ramajanam, who could be said to be aggrieved. If the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha had kept his money in the benami account of Ramajanam as his Power of Attorney, then too, in our view, Bhishma Pithamaha could not have challenged the notices issued to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hishma Pithamaha before the TRO. By an order dated 30-11-2006 passed under Rule 11(5) of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, it was held by the Tax Recovery Officer that the claim of the applicant that he is the lawful owner and has inherited the properties, which are the subject matter of attachment, remains only as claim pending pronouncement of the judgment by the civil court. Admittedly, the suit filed by the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha for grant of declaration with regard to the said properties has already been dismissed and the appeal filed against such judgment of the Trial Court is pending. The Tax Recovery Officer held that the application filed by Bhishma Pithamaha under Rule 11(1) of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said properties apparently has always been that of the Math, and the right of the writ petitioner has never been established by any authority or Court of law. 13. As per the own case of the writ petitioner, this High Court in W.P.No.13170/1999, clearly held that the question of ownership of the properties would be a purely civil matter and if the petitioner (Bhishma Pithamaha) has any right over any part of the properties, he can challenge the same in any proceedings in a Civil Court. On the contrary, the writ petitioner had filed his claim over the properties in the Civil Court, which suit has admittedly been dismissed. As such, we do not find any concluded right of the petitioner over the properties in question. 14. Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution of India at the behest of a person who does not have any confirmed right over the properties and his filing of the writ petition challenging certain notices, which were neither addressed to him nor relate to his own Bank accounts, but are with regard to Bank accounts of one Sri.Ramajanam, who may happen to be his General Power of Attorney, but would be an independent person. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the writ Court was not justified in going into the merits of the correctness of the notices which had been challenged in the writ petition by the writ petitioner who, in our view, would be a stranger to the said notices, and the writ petition, filed by a stranger or a person not named in the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
