Law:

Section:

Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Certificate proceedings - Assessing authority attached certain immovable property of assessee pursuant to a demand notice - When assessee approached authorities saying that he was not liable to pay sum as demanded in impugned notice, respondent-authority clarified that tax demanded from assessee was only protective in nature and department would not enforce same until matter was finalized by Assessing Officer - Later, department sought to recover rent from property - Whether since order of attachment of property was protective in nature, same could not be questioned by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, however, without there being any authority, respondent could not collect rent from property unless an order had been passed by authority that investment had been made by assessee's sister and property, thus, belonged to her - Held, yes. K.P. Sanjeev Kumar for the Petitioner. J. Naresh Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final orders. 2. The petitioner, Rajbabu, questioned the order of attachment of immovable property bearing Door No. 39, General Patters Road, Chennai-2, which was issued as if the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,84,000 payable by him in Certificate No. TRC No. 557 to 564/02-03, dated 31st Dec., 2002. When the petitioner has approached the authorities saying that he is not liable to pay the sum as demanded in the impugned notice, the respondent-authority came out with a letter dated 27th Feb., 2003 that the tax demanded in a sum of Rs. 13,24,000 from the petitioner is only protective in nature and the Department would not enforce the same until the matter is finalised by the Assessing Officer. However, the letter proceeds that request of the petitioner for lifting of attachment on immovable properties jointly owned by him and his sister would be considered after getting legal advice as it is the case of the Department that the source of investment has been made by the petitioner's sister. 3. Now the only complaint of the petitioner before this Court, when the matter is taken up…

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