TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said Rules by the petitioner. The Rules being very clear, thus, the amount in question had to be forfeited to the Government and not credited to the petitioner. Even otherwise once the auction was not successful then as per the above-said Rules and also as per the stand of the respondent in the written statement, the property is required to be re-auctioned. In case, the re-auction is successful then the petitioner will have the benefit of the sale proceeds. Thus, considering from any aspect, the impugned action of the respondents is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the first submission of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. With respect to the aspect that the said amount had been credited in the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-9 with the writ petition), vide which the Income Tax Officer, Nabha has not given the credit of ₹ 8,02,500/- to the petitioner, which was the amount received from Shri Ashok Kumar (Bidder) and was forfeited under Rule 58 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to the auction conducted on 30.03.2016 of the shops owned by the petitioner. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to rectify Form-3 dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P-10 with the writ petition) to the extent that the said credit of ₹ 8,02,500/- has not been given to the petitioner, who has availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 08.03.2016, a penalty of ₹ 69,72,671/- was imposed on the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] was dismissed on 18.11.2016. On further appeal by the petitioner, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure P-3 with the writ petition) remanded the case to the CIT(A) to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and thereafter, decide the issue in accordance with law. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 28.02.2018 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP-7603-2018 and this Court vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 (Annexure P-5 along with the writ petition) in which, it was observed by the Tax Recovery Officer that earlier a credit of the amount of ₹ 8,02,500/- had been inadvertently granted to the petitioner, whereas, the said amount was forfeited to the account of the Government as per Rule 58 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the necessary correction with respect to the outstanding arrear demand, relevant to Assessment Year 2009-10, was carried out by the said order. That in the present case, notice of motion was issued on 15.03.2021. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In the written statement, it has been stated that the impugned amount has been credited to the Government account in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent has relied upon the averments made in the written statement and has prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. This Court has considered the arguments of both the counsels and has gone through the entire record and finds that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed, for the following reasons:- That it is not in dispute that the relevant rules governing the aspect of forfeiture with respect to sale of immovable property by the Tax Recovery Officer are Rule 57 and 58 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Rules are reproduced hereinbelow:- Deposit by purchaser and resale in default. 57. (1) On every sale of immovable property, the person declared to be the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment . Even, the expenses of the auction can be deducted from the said amount. Thus, it has been rightly observed in the impugned order that the amount of ₹ 8,02,500/-, which was the forfeited amount could not be credited into the account of the petitioner and was forfeited to the Government as the auction purchaser failed to deposit the balance amount. Moreover, there is no challenge to the said Rules by the petitioner. The Rules being very clear, thus, the amount in question had to be forfeited to the Government and not credited to the petitioner. Even otherwise once the auction was not successful then as per the above-said Rules and also as per the stand of the respondent in the written statement, the property is required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
