TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent was effected on November 7, 1973. The petitioner who happens to be the daughter-in-law of Raja Ram allegedly purchased the property No. 107, Ward-7, Mohalla Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on September 22, 1980. She came out with the case that the said property No.107 was not the subject-matter of attachment order dated November 7, 1973. The case of the Department, on the other hand, was that the property No.107 was also the subject-matter of the attachment order dated November 7, 1973, and as such, any subsequent sale to her is void and illegal. It further appears that an objection was filed by the present petitioner, namely, Smt. Malti Devi before the Tax Recovery Officer on the ground that she is a bona fide purchaser o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal. 3. Shri Suyash Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner of Income-tax to have also considered the validity of the order of the Tax Recovery Officer holding that the property in question stood attached in pursuance of the order dated November 7, 1973. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax has misinterpreted and misconstrued the judgment of this court. Shri Shambhu Nath Chopra, the learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitely, the said order is relevant and material to the controversy involved herein. 7. Even otherwise also, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly referred sub-rule (6) of rule 11 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which provides that any claim or objection preferred by a party may institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims to the property in question. The said rule further provides that the order of the Tax Recovery Officer is conclusive subject to the result of the suit. For the sake of convenience the said rule is reproduced below: (6) Where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a s....