9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution of India challenging the order dated 4.3.2009 at Annexure 'A' passed by respondent No. 1 under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the oder passed by respondent No. 2 in respect of auction of agricultural land situated at Village Paria, Taluka Pardi, District Valsad referred to therein on the grounds set out in detail in the petition, inter alia, that the impugned order is bad, illegal and contrary to law as, under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, the order has been passed rejecting the appeal of the petitioner after lapse of 12 years vide the aforesaid order dated 4.3.2009. It is further contended that the delay has been caused due to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 59 by CIT, Surat acted as a bidder against the reserve price of the property and that is the matter of challenge by the petitioner on the various grounds, inter alia, that an opportunity has been denied to him. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar appearing with Ms. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that as contended the petitioner had, vide his application dated 4.4.1997, expressed a desire to avail benefit of Rule 62 of the Second Schedule of the Act and expressed his willingness to make the deposit of the amount as required and therefore it should not have been proceeded further for which he referred to Annexure 'D' as well as Annexure 'E'. The letter at Annexure 'E' is a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgments in the case of M.U. Joshi v. Tax Recovery Officer and ors., reported in 281 ITR 289, Smt. Moni Senan v. CIT & Ors., 248 ITR 452, Shatrushalyasinhji Digvijaysinhji Jaqdeja v. CIT & anr., 223 CTR 312 and in the case of Kunhambu K v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Officer, 185 CTR (Kar) 289 in support of his submissions. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar therefore submitted that the procedure followed is totally contrary to the sale and has amounted to denial of natural justice and fair play to the petitioner. 6. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt appearing with learned Standing Counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt for the respondent authorities referred to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the contentions which have been sought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has not pursued the matter. Learned sr. counsel Mr. Bhatt submitted that it is also required to be appreciated that the proclamation was made in 1996 and thereafter again in the proclamation dated 4.2.1997 the reserve price was mentioned and the auction has taken place in 1997, which is challenged in the present petition. The contention that the appeal was pending is also misconceived as, if the appeal was pending and if he was so interested, he could have pursued the matter. Not only that, Mr. Bhatt, the learned sr. counsel referred to the impugned order at Annexure 'A' and submitted that as rightly observed, after the certificate of sale dated 14.10.2003 was given to the appellant, no objection was raised at that time. Written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered is whether there is any procedural lapse which would render the entire auction sale illegal or void and secondly whether there is any substance in the submission about violation of natural justice and fair play as sought to be canvassed. 11. Though the contention has been raised that he was not aware about the reserve price and no reserve price was fixed, factually it is not correct inasmuch as the proclamation issued in 1997 mentioned the reserve price to the knowledge of the petitioner. Thereafter his communication at Annexure 'E' dated 4.4.1997 expressing his willingness or his desire to avail of benefit of Rule 62 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act is also misconceived as the Department vide communication dated 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n after confirmation of the sale, for which he has made a grievance in the present petition, he did not file any petition for 4 years. Not only that, even thereafter he has not filed the petition or had taken any recourse. 12. The reliance placed by learned sr. counsel Mr. Soparkar on the judgments referred to hereinabove would also not be of any assistance to the petitioner. The impugned order at Annexure 'A' has dealt with the contentions referred to in detail and in fact it has been observed that the petitioner has mis-stated the facts inasmuch as when he states that the Department was aware about the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of attachment and the auction, in fact no such appeal was pending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
