9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of income tax/penalty/interest/fine and the petitioner was required to make payment of the said amount under the provisions of Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income Tax Act). Pursuant to a subsequent notice for appearance before the Tax Recovery Officer, the petitioner filed his objection. However, an order of attachment was issued on 25 April 2011. After exchange of affidavits between the parties, the matter was heard and the writ Court held that the Tax Recovery Officer had illegally and without any basis proceeded to issue notices to the petitioner under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The notices that were issued to the petitioner were held to be wholly without jurisdiction and were, therefore, set aside with costs. The notice dated 15 February 2011 and subsequent notices and summons as well as attachment order dated 25 April 2011 were set aside. The respondents were restrained from proceeding against the petitioner under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act for recovery of any amount due to Ms. Vejenti Gupta. In the other Writ Tax No.216 of 2012 (second writ petition), the applicant-petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent nos.3 and 4 to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that though the cancellation of the allotment was in compliance of the notice dated 24 August 2011 from the Income Tax Department and the income tax notice has been aside by the High Court, the HDFC had decided to maintain the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the applicant and to decline restoration of his loan for purchase of the flat in question looking to the highly irregular loan amount maintained by the applicant with the HDFC while the same was current. It was also stated that the cancellation of the allotment by the letter dated 5 September 2011 addressed to the builder was being maintained for different reasons stated therein. Reference was also made to a judgment dated 8 August 2012 passed in Writ Tax No.956 of 2012 that was filed by the HDFC and was observed that in view of the finding recorded by the High Court, there is no valid reason for the HDFC to allow the request of the applicant seeking restoration of his allotment. Therefore, the representation of the applicant dated 13 April 2012 and all subsequent representations and reminders submitted on the subject stood accordingly declined and refused by the HDFC. A counter affidavit sworn on 5 September 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Corporation and the respondent builder could take fresh action on any other ground except on the basis of the notice issued by the Income Tax Department. At this stage learned counsel for the respondent states that some time may be granted to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, list this petition after a month. However, it is open to the applicant to liquidate the entire dues of the Corporation." HDFC, pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 27 September 2013, recalled the order dated 13 October 2012 passed on the earlier representation dated 13 April 2012 of the applicant and the request of the applicant for instructions to the builder to restore allotment of Flat No.411 was considered afresh by means of a letter dated 22 October 2013. A perusal of the letter dated 22 October 2013 of HDFC reflects that the applicant's request was considered solely on commercial parameters and business interest of HDFC. It was stated that there was poor adherence to the payment schedule on the part of the applicant during the several financial years. There were 19 instances which reflected poor financial discipline maintained by the applicant. Therefore, the HDFC was of the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second writ petition as well as in the present contempt application. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to rebut the arguments made on behalf of the opposite parties by stating that the decisions on the representations of the applicant are completely misconceived as they proceed on the basis that the loan account was irregular. It is contended that attachment of the property was withdrawn by the Income Tax Department as is reflected from the letter dated 13 November 2013 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Kanpur to the Branch Manager of the HDFC which letter is enclosed as Anneuxre CA-3 to the counter affidavit dated 28 March 2015 filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.6 and 7. It is stated that any action taken by the HDFC prior to the aforesaid letter dated 13 November 2013 of the Income Tax Department for cancellation of allotment etc. is void. The learned counsel has referred to the various letters issued by HDFC to the opposite party nos.4 and 5 that are enclosed as Annexure CA-3 and subsequent annexures for refunding the entire amount of loan to HDFC. It is contended that by a letter dated 20 September 2010, the builder intimated to the applicant that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be treated as passed in compliance to the order dated 2 April 2012 passed by the writ Court in the second writ petition. It is further submitted that the order was passed (by HDFC) for the purpose 'to exempt from above contempt proceeding' and was passed in haste on non-existing grounds and without considering the entire cases. It is also stated that the applicant is challenging the validity of the said order by filing a separate petition. It is noticed that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27 September 2013 passed in this contempt application, the order dated 13 October 2012 was recalled by HDFC and the request of the applicant for instruction to the builder to restore allotment of the flat was considered afresh on the basis of his representation dated 1 October 2013 submitted to HDFC. In the decision, as communicated by letter dated 22 October 2013, HDFC categorically opined not to restore the housing loan facility granted to the applicant and expressed that it is not inclined to request or instruct the builder to restore his flat. It was further stated that since the loan account of the applicant already stood closed with deposits made by the builder on 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
