2019 (8) TMI 242 - HC - Income Tax

Proceedings under Rule 11(1) - recovery proceedings - attachment orders - alternative remedy - HELD THAT - In the light of the respondent now dealing with the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed / adumbrated under the Rules (as already alluded to supra) this Court refrains itself from expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter as that will impact the proceedings before the respondent. Though obvious, it is made clear that orders passed by the respondent under Rule 11(4), which will be culmination of the writ petitioner's application dated 25.03.2019, will be open to challenge in a manner known to law, if it is adverse to the writ petitioner. Obviously, if it is in favour of the writ petitioner, that would be the end of the matter as far as writ petitioner's campaign qua impugned order is concerned. In the light of no opinion being expressed on merits, it is made clear that other legal recourse, if any available to the writ petitioner in law if resorted to, post respondent passing orders on 25.03.2019 claim / objections of writ petitioner will not be impeded by the instant order. This writ petition is disposed of, recording the submissions of the lone respondent that orders under Rule 11(4) of Schedule II will be passed within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, obviously order in 25.03.2019 claim / objections filed by the writ petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to an order of attachment of immovable property under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order of attachment of immovable property made by the Income Tax department. The petitioner had entered into a joint venture agreement with a company for the development of land, followed by a registered Power of Attorney and subsequent revocation of the same. The petitioner also parted with a portion of the land to another finance company. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, questioning the attachment. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter due to ongoing proceedings. The respondent assured to dispose of the petitioner's objections within a fortnight. The court emphasized that any adverse orders passed by the respondent could be challenged legally, while favorable orders would conclude the matter for the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, with no costs awarded, and related petitions were closed.

This judgment highlights the procedural aspects under Rule 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, governing investigations into objections or claims regarding property attachment. It underscores the importance of following prescribed procedures and the right to challenge adverse decisions legally. The court's decision to refrain from expressing opinions on ongoing proceedings demonstrates a commitment to procedural fairness and respect for the legal process. The assurance given by the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's objections promptly reflects a commitment to resolving disputes efficiently within the framework of the law.