Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (2) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to 1988-89 due from the late Nimmalla Appanna. It is stated that N. Appanna and his father, the late N. Peddanna, were wealth-tax assessees and were residents of Anantapur town. It appears that there were wealth-tax arrears to the tune of Rs.5.5 lakhs owed by N. Appanna in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 to 1988-89. According to the wealth-tax authorities, the above house properties with appurtenant lands belonged to the joint family and were assessed in the hands of N. Appanna, Hindu undivided family (HUF). In connection with the recovery of the said arrears of the wealth-tax, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Department, issued a proclamation in the Telugu daily newspaper Eenadu and brought to sale the petition schedule pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... door Nos. 28/50, 28/51 and 28/52 situated at Subhash Road, Old Town, Anantapur, and to declare the impugned action of auctioning the above properties as illegal. In the said writ petition, the petitioners claimed that the properties mentioned in the auction notification dated January 7, 1996 and published in Eenadu daily are the properties of petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 and they are not the properties of the late N. Appanna and therefore those properties are not liable to be attached and sold for recovery of wealth-tax arrears due from N. Appanna. According to N. Mangathayaramma and her children, the above properties were acquired by them through a registered will deed dated July 5, 1969, executed by the late Peddanna, who is the father of N. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ift deed bequeathing house properties bearing municipal door Nos. 28/49, 28/50 and 28/52 in favour of the writ petitioner and his brother, Devarajulu, and the house property bearing municipal door No. 28/51 in favour of Smt. Lalithamma. After the death of Smt. Lalithamma, the house property bearing municipal door No. 28/51 devolved on the family of the writ petitioner by virtue of a registered will executed by the late Smt. Lalithamma and thus he became the absolute owner of the house property bearing door No. 28/51 also. Before proceeding further, at this stage itself, it needs to be noted that though the house properties bearing municipal door Nos. 28/49, 28/50, 28/51 and 28/52 were sought to be auctioned and sold for recovery of the w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he decree produced before the court at the time of hearing, plaint "A" schedule properties include the petition schedule property also. It is true that by the decree passed in the said suit, the plaintiffs' (writ petitioners) right and title over plaint "A" schedule properties which include the petition schedule property is declared and there is also a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. It is stated that the said decree is stayed by the appellate court. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the decree passed in O.S. No. 31 of 1978, it does not seem that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3870 of 1996 is a party to the said decree. Further, the authorities under the Wealth-tax Act are also not parties to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. N. Nagaraju, 6. N. Kalyani. The petitioners in W.P. No. 109 of 1996 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Having agreed for the sale of the petition schedule property for realisation of the wealth-tax dues, the petitioners in W.P. No. 109 of 1996 cannot turn round after the sale and question the validity of the sale. There is also no merit in W.P. No. 3870 of 1996 which is directed against the order of the Tax Recovery Officer, Tirupati, in rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner therein under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the said petition was filed only after final proclamation was issued for sale of the property. The observation made by the Tax Recovery Officer, Tiru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates