| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1080 2009 SLD 1080 (2009) 314 ITR 7 |
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 26 OF 2007, JANUARY 9, 2009
PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
Suyash Agrawal for the Petitioner. Shambhu Nath Chopra for the
Respondent.
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 26 OF 2007, JANUARY 9, 2009
PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
Suyash Agrawal for the Petitioner. Shambhu Nath Chopra for the
Respondent.
Smt. Malti Devi
v.
TAX Recovery Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 222 of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection or recovery of tax - Certificate proceedings Where attached property had been sold in auction to third party which party had not been impleaded as party in petition against attachment and moreover petitioner was also found to have concealed a material fact, such petition was not maintainable [In favour of revenue] Smt. Malti Devi v. TRO [2009] 314 ITR 7 /225 CTR (All.) 334 'RR'-HUF was a defaulter of income-tax dues. In recovery of the said dues, the Department attached property 'A'. The attachment was effected on 7-11-1973. The petitioner who happened to be the daughter-in-law of 'RR', allegedly purchased the property 'B' on 22-9-1980 from 'RR'. She came out with the case that the said property 'B' was not the subject-matter of attachment order dated 7-11-1973. The case of the Department, on the other hand, was that the property 'B' was also the subject-matter of the attachment order dated 7-11-1973 and, as such, any subsequent sale to her was void and illegal. An objection was filed by the petitioner, before the Tax Recovery Officer on the ground that she was a bona fide purchaser of the property in question prior to the attachment order and also that the property in question belonged to 'RR' in his individual capacity and the said property could not be sold for the recovery of dues outstanding against 'RR' HUF. 'RR' also filed certain objections claiming the property in question as his individual property. The Tax Recovery Officer rejected the objection. In view of rule 11(6) of the rules as provided in the Second Schedule, the petitioner instituted suit challenging the order passed by the TRO holding that the property in question was attached by the order dated 7-11-1973. The said suit was dismissed and the dismissal of the suit had been upheld. Thereafter, that an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner. The said appeal was earlier dismissed in default and review application was filed, which also was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the instant court. The instant court, by the dated 25-5-2006, directed the Commissioner to decide the objection filed by the petitioner on…
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