9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1967, and this was followed by a notice dated February 7, 1967, for setting the sale proclamation with a view to their sale. The petitioner objected to the recovery proceedings, but the proceedings have not been dropped. The petitioner contends that the recovery proceedings are illegal because no tax remains due from the petitioner, that in any event there is no recovery certificate to support the recovery proceedings and that no notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, was ever served upon the petitioner. The petition is opposed by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it seems unnecessary to consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner because, in our opinion, the petition ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts. Pursuant to this letter, it seems, the Income-tax Officer attached the immovable property of the petitioner by an order dated January 27, 1967, which stated that as the petitioner and others had failed to pay Rs. 17,32,132.34 " in respect of Certificate No. nil dated January 15, 1967, forwarded by the Income-tax Officer " the petitioner was prohibited and restrained from transferring or charging the said properties. This was followed on February 7, 1967, by an order of the Tax Recovery Officer fixing February 18, 1967, for drawing up the proclamation of sale and setting its terms. That notice also referred to "certificate No. nil dated January 15, 1967, forwarded by the Income-tax Officer ". It is admitted in paragraph 7 of the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 1958 to 1963 (annexures " B-1 " and " B-25 " to the counter-affidavit of the Income-tax Officer). It is admitted that the letter dated June 15, 1965, was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the Tax Recovery Officer cancelling those recovery certificates. It is alleged that the letter was kept on the file but no action was taken on it by the Tax Recovery Officer. It is difficult to appreciate the purport of this assertion. Under section 224(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer has power to withdraw a recovery certificate issued to a Tax Recovery Officer, and this he does by sending an intimation to the Tax Recovery Officer. Nothing more is required. Upon such intimation the recovery certificate stands withdrawn. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government's acceptance of the offer proposed by them. It is alleged that no valid contract came into existence thereby because the requirements of article 299(1) of the Constitution were not satisfied. In our opinion, those considerations cannot vitiate the order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 224 withdrawing or cancelling the recovery certificates. The Income-tax Officer acted in the exercise of his statutory powers, and the order made by him under section 224 cannot be assailed merely because of some misunderstanding or misconception prevailing in the Central Board of Revenue. It was for the Income-tax Officer to exercise his judgment and make an order under section 224. While doing so he may have been prompted and influ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
