9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : GP FOR REVENUE TG COMMON ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J) All these three Writ Petitions impugn the orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer in terms of Rules under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961'). While the first writ petition is filed by the purchasers of individual plots, the other two writ petitions are filed by the landlords ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity alone was carried out by the 6th respondent. 4. It appears that the 6th respondent committed default in payment of the tax dues. As per the counter affidavit filed by the Tax Recovery Officer, assessment proceedings were initiated against the 6th respondent under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Pending assessment proceedings, the 2nd res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counter pointing out that the assessment proceedings initiated against the 6th respondent culminated in orders of assessment passed on 30.12.2010, giving rise to a total tax demand to the tune of Rs. 9,52,94,498/-. This amount became unpaid and hence a certificate in T.R.C. No.248, dated 24.08.2011, was issued. Pursuant to the same, the Tax Recovery Officer - I, issued orders, dated 07.10.2011, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of order of attachment passed under Rule 48, was the sixth respondent the owner of the property and that therefore the orders of attachment and the consequent directions issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 were null and void. 9. Before going into the said question, it must be pointed out that under Rule 68-B (1) of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, no sale of immo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subject matter of attachment. The petitioners in the first writ petition appear to have purchased the individual plots, even before the provisional order of attachment was passed. 11. Therefore on both grounds viz., (a) that under Rule 68-B (1), no further steps were taken within three years and (b) that on the date of order of attachment, the petitioners in the first writ petition had alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
