9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the certificate officer, and, through him, by the income-tax department. This state of things continued up to 14th August, 1967. Thereafter, it appears, the proceedings for recovery were taken over by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Before him, also, a further instalment was paid, namely, of Rs. 500, on or about 6th October 1967, and, thereafter, on or about 9th November, 1967, the balance, due under the above existing certificate, namely, Rs. 7,042.33 appears to have been paid and the same was accepted by the Tax Recovery Officer, who however recorded an order on that date in the following terms : " 9th November, 1967 : challan passed for Rs. 7,042.33 for payment. Await official challan. To date fixed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our view, the order for recovery of the above interest and cost was passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under a misconception and, although the learned Commissioner may not have correctly expressed the position in law in his order, which is challenged in this rule, his decision, so far as his ultimate conclusion is concerned, that the same cannot be recovered by the Tax Recovery Officer is correct. Section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, saves recovery of " any sum payable by way of income-tax, super-tax, interest, penalty or otherwise under the repealed Act........ " and also saved " any action already taken for the recovery of such sum under the repealed Act. " It is clear, however, from the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule II of the Act), and not under the Public Demands Recovery Act, and, as a matter of fact, the appeal to the Commissioner was filed under the said Schedule,--and so section 16(a) of this latter Act (Public Demands Recovery Act) would not apply. In the above view, we would uphold the ultimate decision of the learned Commissioner and accept the opposite party's objection to the recovery of the disputed amounts by the Tax Recovery Officer and this rule must be discharged accordingly. We would, however, make it clear that this order will be without prejudice to the Union's rights, if any, under the law, to recover the disputed accounts by appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
