Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section:

Income-tax---Recovery of tax---Attachment and sale of property---Property in name of wife of partner of defaulter-firm-Wife objecting to attachment on ground property in question acquired out of her own resources---Recovery Officer bound to consider objection objectively---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's husband was a partner of a firm. The petitioner objected to attachment of certain property for recovery of dues of the firm on the ground that the property which was attached was acquired by the petitioner from her own resources, by disposing of other properties owned by her and which had already been subjected to tax as her property in the past. The Assessing Officer, holding that the petitioner had no ostensible source of income from which the property could have been acquired by her and that, the properties under attachment were held by her benami for her husband, directed the Tax Recovery Officer- to recover the dues of the firm by proceedings against the property of the petitioner. On a writ petition: Held, allowing the petition, that when objection to the attachment was raised on the ground that the property in fact belonged to the petitioner which had been acquired by her from her own resources it became the bounden duty of the Assessing Officer as adjudicator to adjudicate that objection of the petitioner objectively and then to proceed in accordance with the finding arrived at on such adjudication. It was necessary that before proceeding against the property of the petitioner, the Recovery Officer had some material, except the bald assertion that she did not have ostensible means to acquire the property. The Tax Recovery Officer was in the first instance to determine the objection of the petitioner as to the availability of the property in question to be attached for recovery of arrears of the firm of which she was not a partner before proceeding further with recovery in, pursuance of the attachment made by the Tax Recovery Officer. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: Rule. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the attachment of her property for recovering the dues of the firm, Komal Tea Co. of which…

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