9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessees in whose cases assessments were made under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as " the old Act ", and with respect to some of them there was imposition of a penalty also under the old Act. Notices on demand for the payments of the amounts due from them were also issued under section 29 of that Act and on their committing default in the payment of the amounts, certificates were issued in all these cases under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will be referred to as the new Act for the recovery of the amounts due. It was in this situation that the Tax Recovery Officer commenced proceedings for the recovery of these amounts under section 222 and we are asked by the petitioners to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t enunciation does not support the proposition that a notice of demand with respect to an assessment made under the old Act could issue only under section 156 of the new Act and that the notice of demand issued under section 29 of the old Act is not a good notice. But, it was maintained that the Tax Recovery Officer to whom certificates were issued under section 222 of the new Act in all these cases, acquired no power to make the recovery since the certificates issued under section 222 of the new Act were preceded by further notices of demand under section 156 of new Act. While this branch of the argument which rests again on section 156 of the new Act is advanced in all these nine writ petitions, the plea of limitation is urged in only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such assessee the amount specified therein by one or more of the modes mentioned below, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Second Schedule..." It was urged that it is clear from these statutory provisions that an assessee is deemed to be in default under the new Act only when there is a notice under section 156 of the new Act and there is non-payment within the period of thirty-five days to which section 220(1) refers. Although the new Act, like the old Act, does not explain when an assessee is in default as contrasted with an assessee who is deemed to be in default, it is, we think, clear that both under the old Act as well as under the new, there can be no default unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld again come into being under section 220(4) of the new Act to clothe the Income-tax Officer with the authority to forward a certificate under section 222 of the new Act. The default which springs from non-payment of the amount demanded under the notice of demand under section 29 of the old Act, has, in our opinion, the same status as a default arising out of nonpayment in compliance with the demand under section 156 of the new Act. The other reason which impels our view that the certificates under section 222 of the new Act were good certificates rests upon the clear provision of section 297(2)(j) of the new Act, which reads : " 297. (2)(j) Any sum payable by way of income-tax, super-tax, interest, penalty or otherwise under the repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before us. So, we negative the contention that the certificates issued under section 222 of the new Act which were not preceded by notices of demand under section 156 of the new Act have no efficacy. But, it was said that, when certificates under section 222 were forwarded by the Income-tax Officer in all the cases before us, the person who made the impugned demands had not become a Tax Recovery Officer since he was appointed as such only on May 25, 1966, by which time all the certificates been forwarded. So, it was contended that the Collector of the concerned district to whom the certificates were forwarded and who was a Tax Recovery Officer as defined by section 2(44)(i), was the person who could make the recovery and not the Tax R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with section 2(44). The power for recovery, which is authorised by section 222 is a concurrent power, which resides in all of them, and we do not accede to the argument that only that Tax Recovery Officer named in the certificate forwarded under section 222 could proceed with the recovery of the amount specified in the certificate. So, a recovery proceeding commenced by one Tax Recovery Officer named in the certificate could, we think, be continued by another Tax Recovery Officer of the same area and a new certificate under section 222 of the new Act with respect to such recovery is, in our opinion, scarcely necessary. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tax Recovery Officer who made the impugned demands did not stand denuded of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
