1970 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - Since we have taken the view that the Sub-Divisional Officer s order in appeal refusing to set aside the sale has become final and the sale is not liable to be set aside, we do not think it necessary to go info this question whether the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the amount recoverable from him disentitles him to make an application for setting aside the sale or disentitles the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the same

Issues:
1. Maintainability of direct appeal to the Commissioner from the order of the Tax Recovery Officer.
2. Applicability of the notification authorizing certain officers to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer.
3. Right of appeal against the order of the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act and the rules made thereunder.
4. Interpretation of rule 86(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules regarding the final appellate authority in tax recovery proceedings.
5. Compliance with the mandatory provision of depositing the amount recoverable from the defaulter in execution of the certificate.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Direct Appeal to the Commissioner:
The petitioner contended that a direct appeal to the Commissioner from the order of the Tax Recovery Officer was maintainable under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 86. However, the court held that the Tax Recovery Officer in this case, being a Tahsildar, did not fall under the specified categories of authorities mentioned in the relevant provisions. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

2. Applicability of Notification Authorizing Officers as Tax Recovery Officers:
A notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra authorized certain officers, including Tahsildars, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act. This notification, effective from April 1, 1962, expanded the scope of officers empowered to act as Tax Recovery Officers, including in cases not covered by specific clauses of rule 86.

3. Right of Appeal Against the Tax Recovery Officer's Order:
The court clarified that under the Income-tax Act and related rules, the right of appeal against the order of the Tax Recovery Officer is provided for. The appeal mechanism is outlined in rule 86 of the rules, specifying the appellate authorities based on the nature of the Tax Recovery Officer issuing the order.

4. Interpretation of Rule 86(1)(b) Regarding Final Appellate Authority:
The court analyzed the provisions of rule 86(1)(b) to determine the final appellate authority in tax recovery proceedings. It was emphasized that the rules do not provide for further appeal beyond the authority specified for each case. The court rejected the petitioner's argument for additional appeals and revisions beyond the designated appellate authority under the statute.

5. Compliance with Mandatory Provision of Deposit:
The court addressed the contention raised by respondents regarding the petitioner's failure to deposit the amount recoverable from him as required by the second proviso to rule 61. It was noted that the petitioner did not comply with this mandatory provision, which could disentitle him from seeking the setting aside of the sale. However, as the Sub-Divisional Officer's order had become final, the court did not delve further into this issue.

In conclusion, the court found no reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner, both in appeal and in revision. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements and the limitations on the right of appeal as provided by the statute and rules.

← Previous Next →