9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act and warrant of attachment of movable properties. 2. Legality of garnishee proceedings and recovery of taxes. 3. Pending appeals and recovery of taxes for previous assessment years. 4. Disclosure of actual amount realized from garnishee proceedings. 5. Destruction of records due to fire and impact on the case. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act and the warrant of attachment of movable properties issued by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the notice was not in accordance with the law and jurisdiction, and no notice had been served on the employer. The petitioner also claimed that recovery proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents contested, stating that steps taken for recovery were legal and justified, and due to a fire in the office, records were not available to verify claims. 2. The petitioner raised concerns about garnishee proceedings initiated against tenants, alleging excessive demands and lack of disclosure on the actual amount realized. The respondents denied over-realization and stated that two tenants had paid a sum under section 226(3) of the Act. The court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to ascertain the actual amount paid by tenants through garnishee proceedings and investigate the matter within three months. Any excess amount found was to be refunded to the petitioner. 3. The judgment addressed the issue of pending appeals for various assessment years and emphasized the need for proper disposal of appeals. It was highlighted that rents had been realized from tenants through garnishee proceedings for a long time, and the authorities were required to disclose the total amount realized from the petitioner. The court directed that pending appeals be disposed of in accordance with the law, and recovery of taxes proceed based on the final orders in appeal. 4. The destruction of records due to a fire in the Income-tax Department was acknowledged, impacting the verification of claims and counter-claims by the parties. The court noted the unavailability of relevant records for effective adjudication. The petitioner and tenants were instructed to cooperate in producing payment documents, and the Commissioner of Income-tax was tasked with investigating the amount paid by tenants through garnishee proceedings. 5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the rule by directing the investigation of the actual amount paid by tenants, refunding any excess amount to the petitioner, and allowing the authorities to proceed with pending appeals and recovery of taxes in accordance with the law. The judgment aimed to bring clarity to the amount realized from garnishee proceedings and ensure proper procedures for recovery and appeal disposal despite the challenges posed by the loss of records due to the fire.
|
