Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 1109 1980 SLD 1109 (1980) 125 ITR 735
Calcutta High Court
F.M.A. Nos. 626 AND 634 OF 1976 APRIL 3, 1980
M.M. DUTT AND SHARMA, JJ.
B.L. Pal, N.L. Pal and Miss. N. Saha for the Appellant. Dr. D. Pal, Pronab Pal and Siddhartha Chatterjee for the
Respondent

Tax Recovery Officer

v.

Md. Ismail

Law:

Section:

Section 297(2)(J) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Repeals and savings - Whether section 2297(2)(j) permits recovery of income-tax, super-tax etc. payable under 1922 Act (i.e. old Act,) but it should be without prejudice to any action already taken under old Act - Held, yes - Whether, where proceedings were started in terms of section 46 of old Act, under Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for sale of certain premises and a claim petition in case of some of properties was dismissed by TRO, an appeal from it would lie to Presidency Divisional Commissioner - Held, yes FACTS The respondents had purchased certain properties from the certificate - debtor. On 30-9-1962, a sale proclamation was issued by the Certificate Officer under rule 46 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, (BPD Act) for the sale of said premises for the recovery of arrears of income-tax from the certificate-debtor. The respondents filed three petitions of objections under BPD Act claiming the properties belonged to them and not to the certificate-debtor. When these claim cases were pending, the ITO made an application for review before the Certificate Officer under section 54 of the BPD Act praying for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 20-9-1961, whereby the claim cases of the respondents relating to certain other premises were allowed and the said properties were released. It was alleged by the ITO that he did not receive any notice fixing the date of hearing of the claim cases on 20-9-1961. By his order dated 10-9-1963, the said review application was rejected by the Certificate Officer. The Union of India preferred an appeal to the Presidency Divisional Commissioner who allowed the same with a direction to the Certificate Officer to rehear the matter on the issue whether the notice was served on the I.T. dept. or not. The Certificate Officer set aside the ex parte order dated 20-9-1961, and fixed the hearing of the claim petitions. Against the said order of the Certificate Officer, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Presidency Divisional Commissioner on the ground that the Certificate Officer had been directed by the Commissioner to hear the matter only on the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492