2019 (6) TMI 1719 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - notice has been issued to the tenants of the petitioners u/s 226(3) - as inter-alia contended that the prohibitory order i.e., impugned notice, has been issued to the tenants of the petitioners, but the petitioners are not partners in the said firm - as contended in the representation that without proceeding against the partners of said firm, who are still available and who have means, it is unfair to proceed against the petitioners who are only legal heirs/daughters of one of the partners, who is no more and whose demise was more than two decades ago - HELD THAT - It would serve the ends of justice if the respondent i.e, Tax Recovery Officer-8, Greams Road, Chennai, is directed to consider all the objections raised by writ petitioners in the aforesaid representation dated 27.05.2019, give an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioners, as also opportunity to submit supporting documents and thereafter pass a considered order qua the impugned notice. The aforesaid Tax Recovery Officer in the course of this exercise, shall also hear out the four partners of said firm. The respondent is directed to complete the exercise within a period of eights weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On passing orders, a copy of the order shall be served on each of the writ petitioners within 7 working days under due acknowledgement. Thus impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the aforesaid representation dated 27.05.2019 in the aforesaid manner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight weeks as stated above. If the outcome is in favour of the writ petitioners, that will be the end of the matter and the impugned notice will stand dropped. If the outcome is otherwise, the impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of a fortnight from the date of communication of disposal of representation to the petitioner under due acknowledgement. Though the petitioner counsel says that there are four partners, this Court is informed that it there are nine partners in said firm. It may not be necessary go into those aspects of the matter and suffice to say that all the partners of said firm who are now available shall also be heard.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the impugned notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tenants of the petitioners.
2. Representation sent to the Income Tax Department on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned notice.
3. Contention regarding the fairness of proceeding against the legal heirs/daughters of a deceased partner instead of the other available partners of the firm.
4. Failure of the Income Tax Department to respond to the representation dated 27.05.2019.
5. Request in the writ petition to quash the impugned notice and to prevent the recovery of the claimed sum from the tenants of the petitioners.

Analysis:
The judgment before the Madras High Court involved a writ petition challenging the validity of an impugned notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tenants of the petitioners. The petitioners, who are daughters of a deceased partner in a partnership firm, contended that the notice was unfair as there were other partners with sufficient assets who could be proceeded against. The representation sent to the Income Tax Department highlighted this argument and emphasized that the petitioners should not be targeted for recovery. The court directed the Tax Recovery Officer to consider all objections raised in the representation, provide a personal hearing to the petitioners, and pass a considered order within eight weeks. The court also instructed the officer to involve all partners of the firm in the process. The impugned notice was to be kept in abeyance pending the outcome of the representation, with further actions based on the decision. The court clarified that if the outcome favored the petitioners, the notice would be dropped, but if not, it would be kept in abeyance for a further period. The judgment aimed at ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioners' objections and involving all relevant parties in the decision-making process to reach a just outcome.