9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to recovery of income-tax dues and order of the Commissioner. Analysis: The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the recovery of income-tax dues and the order of the Commissioner regarding property attachment and rent collection. The petitioner, as the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), contested the recovery proceedings initiated in 1956 for assessment years 1949-50 to 1955-56. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of assessment orders and demand notices, arguing that recovery proceedings were void due to lack of notice of demand. The respondents contended that the recovery was valid, highlighting the belated nature of the petition and the substantial arrears owed by the assessee. The court examined the conduct of the karta and the circumstances of the case. Despite the absence of concrete evidence of notice of demand service, the court found the karta's claim dubious. The karta's delayed assertion, made only after realizing unavailability of records, was deemed an afterthought. The court noted the karta's proactive steps to protect the property, including filing a suit to prevent attachment. The court emphasized that the karta's behavior indicated awareness of the proceedings since 1956, contradicting the claim of ignorance until 1963. The court concluded that the karta's assertion lacked credibility, given the prolonged delay in raising the issue and the strategic actions taken to safeguard the property. Regarding the validity of the assessment orders and recovery proceedings, the court rejected the petitioner's argument. Despite the department's inability to definitively prove notice of demand service, the court upheld the recovery proceedings. The court emphasized that the absence of a positive assertion by the department did not validate the petitioner's claims. The court highlighted the standard practice of issuing notices of demand along with assessment orders, indicating that the karta likely received such notices. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the recovery proceedings and the Commissioner's order were lawful and did not warrant intervention. The petition was dismissed with costs, and any stay order was lifted.
|
