| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 460 1967 SLD 460 (1967) 65 ITR 233 |
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT No. 4581 OF 1965, SEPTEMBER 22, 1966
R.S. PATHAK, J.
R.A. Sharma for the Petitioner. R.L. Gulati for the
Respondent
CIVIL MISC. WRIT No. 4581 OF 1965, SEPTEMBER 22, 1966
R.S. PATHAK, J.
R.A. Sharma for the Petitioner. R.L. Gulati for the
Respondent
Shiv Narain
VS
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Rule 87 of schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Procedure for recovery of tax - Review - Petitioner purchased house in auction conducted under recovery proceedings and deposited part of sale consideration in accordance with Rule 57 - Later petitioner was informed that said property was a mortgaged property - Petitioner filed an application under Rule 61 pointing out that fact that property was subject to incumbrance had not been disclosed to him in sale proclamation, therefore, sale should be cancelled on ground of material irregularity in publishing and conducting sale - No order being passed on that application - Petitioner filed an other application on 21-02-1964 which was rejected by Tax Recovery Officer on ground that security deposit was forfeited because of omission to pay balance of purchase money within time - Petitioner filed review application against forfeiture of security which was dismissed by Tax Recovery officer, without going into merit on ground that petitioner in his application dated 21-02-1964 had withdrawn his objection regarding irregularity in publishing and conducting sale - Petitioner filed second review application seeking dismissel of forfeiture of security order and prayed for allowing him to deposit balance money - Tax Recovery Officer dismissed second review application on ground that date on which forfeiture order was passed as referred to by petitioner in application, there was no such order on that date and he was not competent to reopen proceedings which were terminated - Whether merely because petitioner mentioned a date other than correct date of order of forfeiture should not have prevented Tax Recovery Officer from considering application on its merits as an application for setting aside order of forfeiture - Held yes - Whether since order forfeiting securities was made under Rule 57, that was open to review under Rule 87 and second review application was maintainable because earlier review application had clearly not been disposed of by Tax Recovery Officer on merits - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, writ would be issued quashing order made by Tax recovery officer in rejecting second review application - Held, yes…
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