9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order under section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The petitioner sought recovery of arrear dues from opposite parties who were partners in a firm. The Tax Recovery Officer was approached for realisation of dues, and a portion of compensation due to the opposite parties was attached. The petitioner then filed a petition under section 226(4) of the Act for payment from the compensation amount deposited in court. The opposite parties objected, claiming they were not served with notices of demand and that the executing court should ensure the demand was enforceable. The executing court rejected the petition citing various grounds, including lack of proof of total outstanding arrears. The judgment discusses the provisions of sections 220 to 232 of the Act for collection and recovery of arrears of tax. It highlights that section 226 provides additional modes of recovery, which can be pursued concurrently with proceedings under section 222. The court held that the Income-tax Officer had rightfully utilized both sections in this case. The judgment also addresses the issue of service of notices of demand, emphasizing that such disputes should be resolved by the Tax Recovery Officer and not the civil court where a petition is filed under section 226(4). Moreover, the judgment refers to legal precedents to establish that partners of a firm are jointly and severally liable for tax and penalties due by the firm. It dismisses the argument that the civil court can question the assessment of tax or the quantum of arrears, stating that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer. The judgment also rejects the plea to decide the question of limitation in the civil court, reiterating that such objections should be raised before the Tax Recovery Officer. Lastly, the judgment clarifies that the civil court's role in a petition under section 226(4) is limited to facilitating the recovery of arrears of tax without delving into the legality of the assessment or other related matters. It emphasizes that the court's function is to allow the recovery of the specified amount deposited in court, as requested by the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the civil revision is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting the Income-tax Officer's petition for recovery of the specified amount from the deposit in court. Each party is directed to bear their own costs.
|
