9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as "the said property") for the unpaid dues of incometax department by one Ajaykumar Bhatia, the erstwhile owner. 2. Brief facts are as under. One Ajaykumar Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee in default") was the owner of the said property. He had obtained loan from one the State Bank of Saurashtra by creating equitable mortgage in respect of the said property. Ajaykumar Bhatia and his wife Sarojben A. Bhatia, were the directors of Baldev Ship Breakers Limited. Baldev Ship Breakers Limited had taken the loan but could not repay the borrowed sums of the bank. The bank filed Original Application No.276 and 277 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Pending such proceedings, the State Bank of Saurashtra assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. On 23.3.2009, the respondent Tax Recovery Officer, issued an order of attachment on the said property, as noted above, for the outstanding tax dues of the erstwhile owner Ajaykumar Bhatia. In such notice, it was stated that for the assessment year 19911992 to 19931994 and 19981999, Baldev Ship Breakers Ltd. was in arrears of tax dues of Rs. 1.15 crores (rounded off). Shri Ajay Bhatia was also in arrears of tax of Rs. 4 lacs(rounded off) for the A.Y.1992 1993 and Rs. 6.90 lacs (rounded off) for the A.Y. 19901991, 19941995 till 19961997. Properties under attachment included the said office premises no. 234 and 235 of Madhav Darshan complex. It is this order, the petitioner has challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of such loans, the State Bank of Saurashtra had instituted suits before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Pending such suits, the debt was assigned to ARCIL who through his agent sold the property to Arvindsinh V. Jadeja in exchange of releasing the directors from personal guarantee as well. ARCIL having recovered its debts, released the property from mortgage as well. It was only thereafter, Arvindsinh V. Jadeja sold the said property to the petitioner, which, it is not even the case of the department, was without full consideration of market value or with the knowledge that against erstwhile owner, the income tax department had any claim. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue however, drew our attention to a communication dated 12.1.2007 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
