2009 (1) TMI 205 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery of Tax Attachment and sale of property Petition purchased property from father in laws who was defaulter and against whom recovery proceedings were initiated - the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred sub-rule (6) of rule 11 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which provides that any claim or objection preferred by a party may institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims to the property in question. The said rule further provides that the order of the Tax Recovery Officer is conclusive subject to the result of the suit commissioner s order as approved by the civil court upheld.

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Tax Recovery Officer regarding the attachment of property.
2. Consideration of the judgment of the civil court and the High Court in the present writ petition.
3. Compliance with the order of the High Court in the previous writ petition.
4. Impleading necessary parties in the writ petition.
5. Concealment of material facts in the writ petition.

Issue 1: Validity of the order of the Tax Recovery Officer regarding the attachment of property:
The case involved a property attachment dispute where the petitioner, daughter-in-law of the defaulter, claimed to have purchased a property allegedly not subject to the attachment order. The Tax Recovery Officer rejected objections, leading to a civil suit challenging the attachment. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the attachment order, citing the conclusive nature of the Tax Recovery Officer's decision, which was also affirmed by the civil court.

Issue 2: Consideration of the judgment of the civil court and the High Court in the present writ petition:
The High Court highlighted the importance of presenting all relevant judgments in the writ petition. The petitioner's failure to include judgments confirming the attachment order in previous court cases was deemed as concealment of material facts. The court emphasized the significance of these judgments in determining the validity of the attachment order.

Issue 3: Compliance with the order of the High Court in the previous writ petition:
The Commissioner of Income-tax was directed by the High Court in a previous writ petition to review the petitioner's objections regarding the property attachment. The Commissioner, after due consideration, dismissed the appeal, indicating compliance with the High Court's order.

Issue 4: Impleading necessary parties in the writ petition:
The High Court noted that the property in question had been auctioned to a third party, Shri Kapoor Chand, who was not a party in the present writ petition. Due to this omission, the court found the writ petition not maintainable in the absence of a crucial party to the property transaction.

Issue 5: Concealment of material facts in the writ petition:
The court criticized the petitioner for failing to include judgments upholding the attachment order in previous court cases. The court deemed this omission as intentional concealment of material facts, emphasizing the relevance of such judgments in determining the validity of the attachment order.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs, citing the auction sale of the property to a third party, the concealment of material facts regarding previous court judgments, and the conclusive nature of the Tax Recovery Officer's decision on the attachment order. The court highlighted the importance of presenting all relevant judgments and parties in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of the case.

← Previous Next →