TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the Petitioner is willing to pursue the appeal before the 2nd Respondent, she can be permitted to raise all the grounds and submissions made in this Writ Petition before the 2nd Respondent on payment of substantial sum to stay the recovery proceedings, pending the appeal. The Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the Respondents are restrained from initiating the recovery proceedings against the Petitioner, till the disposal of the appeal by the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. - WP. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was paid by the Petitioner. However, a notice under Section 143(2) dated 23.9.2013 was issued. The defect in the title due to the change in the area of the property was sought to be rectified by the Petitioner by the sale deed dated 12.08.2011. The Petitioner explained to the 1st Respondent that the properties conveyed by the said two sale deeds are one and the same and that the property conveyed under the sale deed dated 29.12.2011 is the only area of the property reconveyed after rectification. However, the 1st Respondent by assessment order dated 31.03.2015, demanded a tax of ₹ 54,05,590/- including interest, taking into consideration the market value of the property as ₹ 1,15,28,000/- and adding ₹ 9,00,000/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property conveyed in the original deed is not exactly the same as the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.12.2011 and hence, only by the sale deed dated 29.12.2011, the ownership is legally vested with the assessee. According to the Petitioner, only for record purpose, the total market value of the property was mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.12.2011 as ₹ 1,15,28,000/- as per the directions of Sub Registrar, taking into consideration the guide line value prevailed in the year 2011. Be that as it may. It appears that the property in question, which was earlier registered inadvertently came to be registered once again, which lead the assessing authority to pass the impugned assessment order under the provisions of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
