9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dues. It only guards the bank against a possible future claim from the income tax department. However, in any case, such communication would not make the title of the petitioner imperfect. Despite such communication by incometax department to the bank, the moot question would be, did the department have a prior charge over the property which before raising of the dues of the department was already mortgaged in favour of the financial institution? Even if the bank had disregarded such a communication of the incometax department and not shared with the department, proceeds of the sale of such property, at best, it may be a dispute between the incometax department and the bank and in any case, cannot harm the petitioner who was the subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut could not repay the borrowed sums of the bank. The bank filed Original Application No.276 and 277 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Pending such proceedings, the State Bank of Saurashtra assigned its debts in favour of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited ( ARCIL for short) on 29.3.2007. In turn, ARCIL appointed one Usha Martin Finance Company Limited on 25.4.2007 as its constituted attorney to carry out the recoveries. On 23.10.2007, Usha Martin Finance Company Limited decided to sell the property of the directors of Baldev Ship Breakers Ltd., the borrowers. The agreement was worked out by joint signing of MOU on 23.10.2007 between the directors of Baldev Ship Breakers Ltd. and Usha Martin Finance Company Limited unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 6.90 lacs (rounded off) for the A.Y. 19901991, 19941995 till 19961997. Properties under attachment included the said office premises no. 234 and 235 of Madhav Darshan complex. It is this order, the petitioner has challenged in the present petition contending that : 1) The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 2) In response to the notice for title clearance, department raised no objections. The petitioner had thus acted on title clearance certificate issued by his attorney. 3) The department, anyway, has no priority claim over the dues of the bank, for recovery of which the property was sold. 4) The sale deed was executed long before the order of attachment was passed. In this context, counsel relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without full consideration of market value or with the knowledge that against erstwhile owner, the income tax department had any claim. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue however, drew our attention to a communication dated 12.1.2007 to the State Bank of Saurashtra made by the Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Bhavnagar in which it was conveyed to the said bank that incometax department had to recover huge amount of tax from Ajaykumar Bhatia, his family HUF and Baldev Ship Breakers Ltd. This mere communication to the bank would not take shape of the attachment of the property which can be so in terms of rule 48 of the Procedure for Recovery of tax, which happened only on 23.3.2009, that is, long after the property for realisation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
