9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 683 - HC - Income TaxRecovery of Tax- The Petitioner claimed to be the legal heir of P, who was said to have purchased the property from DCG out of stridhan. The tax Recovery Officer sole the property by auction to recover the income tax dues of D rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the real owner of the property was P and not D. in the writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated August 6, 2007, the petitioner contended that the scope of enquiry under Rule 11 was limited and was confined only to a summary investigation as regard possession and that the tax recovery officer could not decide the title of the property. Held that- the provisions of the various sub-rules under rule 11, it becomes apparent that the Tax Recovery Officer is duly empowered to investigate any claim or objection in connection to attachment or sale of a property in the manner set out therein. In the instant case, it is seen that the Tax Recovery Officer has not made the slightest deviation from the strict letters of law which govern his power and jurisdiction under rule 11, while the petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief. The Tax Recovery Officer was given 45 days to finalize the sale to enable the petitioner to approach the competent civil court.
Issues Involved
1. Legitimacy of the Tax Recovery Officer's (TRO) order dated August 6, 2007. 2. Ownership and benami status of the property at 13, Kalipukur Road, Sheoraphully, Hooghly. 3. Jurisdiction of the TRO under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 5. Remedy available to the writ petitioner. Detailed Analysis 1. Legitimacy of the TRO's Order Dated August 6, 2007 The writ petition challenges the TRO's order regarding the auction sale of an immovable property to recover income-tax dues. The petitioner claims the property was owned by his mother, Panna Bai, and not by Dwarka Prasad Agarwala, whose dues were being recovered. The TRO concluded the property was benami, owned by Dwarka Prasad Agarwala, and thus subject to auction for recovering his tax dues. The court found the TRO acted within his jurisdiction, following directions from previous court orders and considering all relevant evidence. 2. Ownership and Benami Status of the Property The petitioner argued that the property was purchased by his mother, Panna Bai, from her stridhan and was assessed under her name in municipal and wealth-tax records. The TRO, however, determined that Panna Bai was a fictitious person and the real owner was Dwarka Prasad Agarwala. The TRO relied on various pieces of evidence, including municipal records, wealth-tax returns, and field inquiries, to conclude that the property was benami. 3. Jurisdiction of the TRO Under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 The petitioner contended that the TRO did not have the authority to adjudicate the question of benami. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the petitioner himself had earlier submitted to the jurisdiction of the TRO and that previous court orders had directed the TRO to investigate the matter, including the benami aspect. The court affirmed that the TRO's investigation and findings were within his jurisdiction under Rule 11. 4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice The petitioner claimed that the TRO violated principles of natural justice by not providing him with an opportunity to counter the evidence used against him. The court found that the TRO had given adequate notice and opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. The TRO's findings were communicated to the petitioner, who was given time to respond. The court concluded that the TRO adhered to the principles of natural justice in his proceedings. 5. Remedy Available to the Writ Petitioner The court noted that under Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has the right to institute a civil suit to establish his claim to the property. The court provided a 45-day period for the petitioner to approach a competent civil court to seek appropriate reliefs, ensuring that the TRO does not finalize the sale within this period. Conclusion The court upheld the TRO's order dated August 6, 2007, rejecting the petitioner's claims and confirming the auction sale for recovery of tax dues. The court emphasized that the TRO acted within his jurisdiction and complied with natural justice principles. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy through a civil suit within 45 days. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
|
