9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT.: [Per S.J. Vazifdar, J.] 1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 25th August, 2009 and 29th December, 2011. 2. The matter pertains to the recovery of the tax dues of the petitioner's wife Smt. Dharmistha S. Shah as a partner of M/s. Pankaj Investments. The respondents contend that the outstanding arrears are of about Rs.7,19,25,317/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer confirmed the liability of the petitioner's wife in respect of the said tax dues and held that she was a co-owner of the said flat and that there was no concrete evidence brought on record by the petitioner to prove that he was the sole owner thereof. He, accordingly, held that the attachment of the flat would remain in force till the date of payment of the arrears. 6. We do not wish to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Needless to add that all the contentions of the parties are kept open. The attachment shall continue. However, if the petitioner files an appeal and makes an application for interim relief therein within four weeks from today, no further action for the sale of the flat shall be taken till the interim application is disposed of and, if the order is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
