2018 (9) TMI 1098 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment of properties by the Tax Recovery Officer exercising power u/s 222(1) - grievance of the petitioner is that out of nine items, when Item Nos.1 to 7 are sufficient enough to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, as the value of those properties exceeds more than ₹ 2 crores as per the market value, attaching the other two sets of properties viz., item Nos.8 and 9, is totally unnecessary - Held that - Petitioner has already made a representation before the third respondent on 20.08.2018, ventilating the above said grievances. It is seen that the said representation is still pending and not disposed of. Therefore, it is for the third respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders taking note of the facts and circumstances and the documents filed by the petitioner in support of such contentions. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the said representation to the third respondent along with the copy of the order passed in this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of only by directing the third respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Attachment of properties by Tax Recovery Officer under Section 222(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of stay application by the Appellate Authority.
3. Dispute regarding the necessity of attaching certain properties.
4. Ownership dispute over specific properties.
5. Pending representation before the third respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the order of attachment of nine properties by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 222(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had previously filed appeals against assessment orders for the years 2009-10 to 2015-16 and a stay application, which was partly allowed by the High Court. However, the petitioner failed to furnish immovable security worth ?2 crores as directed, leading to the attachment of properties.

2. The petitioner contended that out of the nine attached properties, items 1 to 7 were sufficient to cover the tax liability, making the attachment of items 8 and 9 unnecessary. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that three properties under Survey Nos. 444/2, 444/3, and 444/4 did not belong to him but to his daughter, hence should not be attached. The High Court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's grievances and representations before passing any further orders.

3. The High Court emphasized that the pending representation dated 20.08.2018 by the petitioner should be reviewed by the third respondent, who should make a decision based on the facts, circumstances, and documents provided by the petitioner. The Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the third respondent to address the petitioner's representation within two weeks from receiving a copy of the order, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's contentions.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the attachment of properties by the Tax Recovery Officer, the rejection of the stay application, and the necessity of considering the petitioner's grievances regarding the specific properties attached and the ownership dispute. The High Court's directive to the third respondent to review the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe aimed to address the issues raised by the petitioner in a timely manner.