TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner received a notice from Shri H. P. Mudgal, acting on behalf of Rup Narain Dikshit and Baikunth Vaishni Dikshit, informing him that the property which had been purchased by him was subject to a mortgage on the foot of which a suit had been instituted, and the suit had been decreed for Rs. 10,434,79. On October 30, 1963, the petitioner filed an application under rule 61 of Schedule II pointing out that the fact that the property was subject to an encumbrance had not been disclosed in the sale proclamation and that, if he had known of the encumbrance, he would not have purchased the house, and, therefore, the sale should be set aside on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. The petitioner says th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicant towards the purchase price of house No. 1/196, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur " and after setting out the grounds for review, which pointed out that the sale proclamation did not disclose the encumbrance upon the property and that the omission amounted to a material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale and, therefore, the sale was liable to be set aside, and that the applications of the petitioner had been dismissed ex parte, the petitioner prayed that : " The order dated March 31, 1964, forfeiting Rs. 1,500 of the applicant be set aside and the order for refund of the said amount to the applicant be passed ; in the alternative, the applicant be allowed to deposit Rs. 4,500, balance sale consideration and, in the meant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question which had been disposed of by the order dated March 24, 1964. As regards the prayer in the second review application that the petitioner should be allowed to deposit the balance of the sale consideration, he held that as there was no existing sale of the property on account of the default in payment of the balance within time, no question could arise of permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount. In his view, as the petitioner had failed to take proper proceedings for having the order of forfeiture set aside, the second review application was liable to be rejected. It is indisputable that while disposing of an application the authority must apply its mind to the entire contents of the application and consider, what, in subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the date March 31, 1964, be substituted by May 8, 1964. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the order of the Tax Recovery Officer cannot be sustained by the simple consideration that there was no order dated March 31, 1964, forfeiting the security. Then, the Tax Recovery Officer points out that he was not competent to reopen the proceeding terminated by the order dated March 24, 1964. It is difficult to appreciate why he felt that he was not competent. The order forfeiting the security was made under rule 58 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. That order was open to review under rule 87. The second review application was maintainable because the earlier review application had clearly not been disposed of by the Tax Recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
