TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain and Rajesh Rathod instructed by Bilawala and Co. for the petitioners. G. Kulkarni with Satish Bejai instructed by Bejai and Co. for respondent No.1. R. Ashokan with P. S. Sahadevan for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Ms. Pradnya T. Acharya for respondent No.5. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F. I. REBELLO J. - Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that by a registered deed of sale dated 30.7.2002 they purchased the premises from respondent no.5. Admittedly, there were proceedings pending under the Income Tax Act against respondent no.5 on that date. The order of attachment under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act made on 19.6.2002 was lifted sometime in July-2002. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be adjusted against the loan dues of respondent no.5. 5. The petition as earlier filed in this Court was only in the matter of issuance of TDS certificate in the name of the petitioner. In the reply filed by respondent no.1 reference was made to letter dated 4.11.2004 by Tax Recovery officer Range 2(3) to Respondent no.1 wherein it was recorded that the sale of the property by agreement dated 30.7.2002 by respondent no.5 was declared to be null and void by the department by order dated 21.9.2004. Chamber summons was taken out for amendment of the petition and the petition was amended to include amongst other reliefs not to give effect to the orders dated 21.9.2004 and 18.11.2003. 6. The first question that we are called upon to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 281, appropriate proceedings have to be taken before the competent civil Court. The issue therefore, where the order was passed by the Tax recovery officer or Assessing Officer is immaterial. 8. Learned Counsel for assessee further contends that they were bona fide purchasers and the sale cannot be said to be null and void. It is also contended that no opportunity was given to them before the said order was passed and considering the judgment of this Court ( Ms. Ruchi Mehta [2007] 294 ITR 614, the order must be set aside on that ground also. We need not answer these questions at this stage in view of the order to be passed. 9. In so far as first contention, we are of the opinion that the order declaring the sale deed dated 30.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue TDS certificate in favour of the petitioners. The respondent no.1 is therefore, directed to rectify the TDS certificate issued by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.5 and issue it in favour of the petitioners. 12. Considering this position, in our opinion, the demand made by respondent nos. 2 to 3 on the petitioners would be without jurisdiction. It will however, be open for the petitioners to place this material before the competent officer and the competent officer will take such steps in law including withdrawal of the demand considering that the demand was made, as the TDS certificate was not produced by the petitioners. Hence, following order:- ORDER 13. The sale deed dated 30.7.2002 in the absence of a declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
