Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1985 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (2) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer to proceed against property claimed to be gifted by petitioners' father.
2. Time-barred recovery proceedings under section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Tax Recovery Officer dated February 16, 1976, claiming that the property being proceeded against was gifted to them by their father, not inherited. The Tax Recovery Officer contended that the gift deed was void as it came into existence after the proclamation regarding the property during the recovery proceedings. The High Court found that the questions regarding the nature of the property and the commencement of recovery proceedings required detailed investigation of facts beyond the scope of writ proceedings. The court noted that Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act provides for such investigations by the Tax Recovery Officer. Therefore, the court directed the petitioners to approach the Tax Recovery Officer to challenge the impugned order and investigate the validity of the contentions under the statutory remedy provided.

Issue 2: Time-barred Recovery Proceedings
The petitioners contended that the recovery proceedings were time-barred under section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the court did not delve into the merits of this contention, as it directed the petitioners to present their claim before the Tax Recovery Officer for investigation. The court ordered that the monies deposited by the tenant in pursuance of the impugned orders would be kept in deposit until the Tax Recovery Officer decides on the claim. The petitioners were given three months to make their claim, and the amount in deposit would be disposed of according to the findings rendered by the Tax Recovery Officer after the investigation.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioners should utilize the alternative remedy provided by filing a claim before the Tax Recovery Officer for a detailed investigation into the issues raised. No costs were awarded in the matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates