9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would obviously be available where the order passed or proceedings initiated are vitiated by fraud and then also if the fraudulent act is attributed to an officer exercising power under the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 does not allege any fraud by or at the behest of the Income Tax Department. The courts below have held that the fraud was perpetuated by M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) but have not returned a finding of fraud against the department. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 was competent to file a suit for recovery against M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) but in absence of any allegation of fraud against the department, could not maintain a suit against the Income Tax Department. The substantial question of law is conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its partners filed a written statement denying averments in the plaint but admitted the attachment of their property, by the Income Tax Department. They denied having received any amount from the plaintiff/respondent No.1. After considering the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? OPP. ii) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. iv) Whether the receipts are not admissible in evidence? OPD. v) Whether the suit is under value? OPD. After going through the pleadings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriated without any demand against Nachhattar Singh, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The substantial question of law that arises for adjudication is Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was not barred under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act? A perusal of the facts reveals that M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) was a defaulter of the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Department raided the premises of M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) and attached its goods and money to satisfy arrears of income tax. Nachhattar Singh plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit alleging that his m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff/respondent No.1 does not allege any fraud by or at the behest of the Income Tax Department. The courts below have held that the fraud was perpetuated by M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) but have not returned a finding of fraud against the department. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 was competent to file a suit for recovery against M/s Janta Janta Scheme (Regd.) but in absence of any allegation of fraud against the department, could not maintain a suit against the Income Tax Department. The substantial question of law is consequently answered in favour of the appellant by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, to entertain the suit, against the Income Tax Department, was bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
