9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow about this suit and on August 19, 1964, issued a notice to the petitioner directing him not to pay the amount due from him to the respondent No. 5 but to pay the same to the Income-tax Officer. On December 31, 1964, another notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the petitioner requiring him to appear before him on January 30, 1965. The suit, however, ended in a consent decree for an amount of Rs. 45,000 on June 28, 1965. The petitioner, who was liable under the decree to the respondent No. 5, who was the original defaulter, was deemed to be a defaulter within the meaning of section 226(3)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, a recovery certificate was issued by Income-tax Officer and he sent it to the Tax Recovery Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory provisions of rule 6 1, proviso (b), the application of the petitioner for setting aside the sale could not be considered. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was further challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector with revenue appellate powers. By his order dated September 5, 1967, the Deputy Collector upheld the preliminary objections on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that the second appeal was not maintainable as the Income-tax Rules provided for one appeal only. This order was again challenged by way of a revision application before the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected the revision application on the ground that no revision was provided under rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules. After the Deputy Collector held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or special notification in the official gazette, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer ; (iii) any gazetted officer of the Central or a State Government who may be authorised by the Central Government, by general or special notification in the official gazette, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer." Under the law relating to land revenue in the State and with respect to the period in question, an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of a Collector to the Commissioner. Therefore, under clause (a), the appellate authority would be the Commissioner. However, an appeal can lie to the Commissioner only where the Tax Recovery Officer is a Collector or an Additional Collector, or is a gazetted officer of the Central or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of land revenue under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or, as the case may be, the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act to exercise the power of a Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the area relating to the recovery of arrears of land revenue under the land revenue laws aforesaid. This notification was made effective from the 1st day of April, 1962. In cases not covered by clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules, an appeal is provided to the revenue authority to which an appeal of an application for revision would ordinarily lie, if the order passed by him were the order under the law relating to land revenue or other public demand for the time being in force in the State concerned. The right of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal provided, one to the Commissioner under clause (a) and the other to such authority which would be the appellate authority or the officer who has been empowered as a Tax Recovery Officer. In the instant case, the Tax Recovery Officer being a Tahsildar against whose orders under the Land Revenue Code an appeal ordinarily would lie to the Sub-Divisional Officer, it will be only the Sub-Divisional Officer who would be the appellate authority and he is the final appellate authority under rule 86. The rules do not make any provision for any further appeal against the appellate order of the Sub-divisional Officer. Rule 86 also does not provide that once an order is passed by a Tax Recovery Officer his order will be subjected to the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right which has been given to him under the statute. In its wisdom the legislature has provided for only one right of appeal whether the matter falls under clause (a) or clause (b). We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in cases falling under clause (b) of rule 86(1), there is a further right of appeal and revision to the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively. In our view, the Deputy Collector with revenue appellate powers as well as the Commissioner took the correct view that no further appeal was maintainable against the appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and no revision was maintainable against the order of the Deputy Collector with revenue appellate powers. Another conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
