TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order was passed by the Income-tax Officer. In our opinion, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, without anything more, to terminate the recovery proceedings altogether. - - - - - Dated:- 25-11-1971 - Judge(s) : R. S. PATHAK., H. N. SETH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by PATHAK J.- The petitioner applies under article 226 of the Constitution against recovery proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on banking and cloth business. For the purpose of recovery of income-tax dues, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax, Kanpur, attached the petitioner's immovable properties on January 27, 1967, and this was followed by a notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the individual partners and not from the petitioner-firm. Even in respect of that amount, the Income-tax Officer directed the Tax Recovery Officer not to press the recovery proceeding until further intimation. The matter appears to have rested there until on January 15, 1967 (wrongly shown as January 25, 1967), the Income-tax Officer wrote to the Tax Recovery Officer setting out various sums said to be due from the petitioner-firm and its partners up to the assessment year 1957-58, amounting in all to Rs. 17,25,086.09. This was apart from the amount of Rs. 7,046.25 already mentioned. The Income-tax Officer desired to know what action was being taken by the Tax Recovery Officer to recover the amounts. Pursuant to this letter, it seems, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded by the Income-tax Officer to the Tax Recovery Officer certifying the amount of arrears due from an assessee. It is a certificate on receipt of which the Tax Recovery Officer is obliged under the section to proceed to recover from the assessee the amount specified therein. The letter of January 15, 1967, assumes that a recovery certificate has already been issued, because it desires to know from the Tax Recovery Officer what action has been taken for recovering the tax arrears. We are of the definite view that the letter of January 15, 1967, cannot be described as a recovery certificate. The case of the respondents is that recovery certificates had been issued earlier on various dates during the years 1958 to 1963 (annexures " B-1 " a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seems to us, makes no difference. Whether the order can be attributed to sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 224, it plainly appears that the said order was passed by the Income-tax Officer. In our opinion, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, without anything more, to terminate the recovery proceedings altogether. Reference has been made by the respondents to what is stated in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit of the Income-tax Officer. It is alleged that the letter of June 15, 1965, was issued on a misconception of the true situation. It is said that the petitioner and its partners applied for a settlement of their tax liability and on May 2, 1961, the Central Board of Revenue intimated the Government's acceptance of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
