2023 (11) TMI 653 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking de-sealing of property - petitioner's erstwhile owner leased out the property to the third respondent, who underwent liquidation - petitioner being the owner of the property made a representation setting out fact that place/property, where, the third respondent-Company run the business, is the petitioner's property and therefore, sought to de-seal the property HELD THAT - As far as second respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is concerned, since it appears that pursuant to a check conducted by the Income Tax Officials at the premises of the third respondent-Company, the certain books of accounts and all other documents of the third respondent- Company were seized; that the Official Liquidator, in pursuance of the proceedings initiated against the third respondent-Company is need of such documents, which were in the custody of Income Tax Official and has sent notice to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, for providing those documents, the said Income Tax Official has been impleaded as one of the party respondent in this Writ Proceedings, this Court is of the view that it would be suffice to direct the first respondent to vacate the property, inasmuch as, the second respondent has no role to play in regard to the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated 04.01.2022 and to pass orders for de-seal of the property. The first respondent is also directed to take back all books of accounts, equipments, if any, that were kept lying in the premises and vacate and hand over vacant premises within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are ownership dispute over a sealed property, liquidation proceedings against a company, wrongful sealing of property by the Official Liquidator, and the need to de-seal the property.

Ownership Dispute:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their representation and de-seal a property in Salem. The petitioner claimed ownership of the property, which was leased to a company that went into liquidation. The Official Liquidator sealed the property without verifying the title, prompting the petitioner to seek relief through the court.

Official Liquidator's Position:
The Deputy Official Liquidator acknowledged the mistake in sealing the property, as it actually belonged to the petitioner. They assured the court that the Official Liquidator would vacate the premises but requested sufficient time to do so.

Income Tax Department's Involvement:
The Income Tax Department mistakenly included the petitioner's property in the assets of the liquidated company. The Official Liquidator required certain documents seized by the Income Tax Officials. However, the court determined that the Income Tax Department had no role in the de-sealing of the property, directing the Official Liquidator to vacate the premises.

Judgment:
The High Court directed the Official Liquidator to consider the petitioner's representation and de-seal the property within 30 days. The Official Liquidator was also instructed to retrieve all relevant documents and equipment from the premises and hand over the vacant property to the petitioner. No costs were awarded in the matter.