9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemical and Pharmaceuticals Industries ("the firm" for short). Pursuant to the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act ("the IT Act" for short) for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, huge demands were raised against the said firm. Appeals filed by the firm against the said assessment orders were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and further appeals filed by the firm were also dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by a common order dated June 15, 1994. There is no dispute that the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on June 15, 1994 has attained finality. As the firm failed to discharge the tax liability finalised for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for sale of the attached immovable property has already expired and, therefore, the property of the petitioner cannot be auctioned and that the attachment levied is liable to be lifted forthwith. Rejecting the objection of the petitioner, the Tax Recovery Officer on March 30, 2004 confirmed the sale of the attached flat for Rs. 10,00,000 in favour of the Government of India under rule 63(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. Challenging the aforesaid confirmation of sale, the present petition is filed. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, sale of any immovable property attached for recovery of tax dues cannot be effected after the expiry o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy of challenging the proclamation of sale and filing a writ is not the proper remedy. It is further submitted that although the demand had attained finality on June 15,1994, the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on May 19, 1998 and, therefore, the limitation would commence from the end of the financial year in which the miscellaneous application was dismissed, i.e., from April 1, 1999 and the period of 5 years would end on March 31, 2004. Since the sale is completed on March 30, 2004, the said sale is within the period of limitation and hence valid. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act reads as under: "68B. Time-limit for sale of attach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than 180 days, such remaining period shall be extended to 180 days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (3) Where any immovable property has been attached under this part before the 1st day of June, 1992, and the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has also become conclusive or final before the said date, that date shall be deemed to be the date on which the said order has become conclusive or, as the case may be, final. (4) Where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty or any other sum for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached has become conclusive under the provisions of section 245-I or under the provisions of Chapter XX of the Income-tax Act. In the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated June 15, 1994, confirmed the demand raised against the firm. It is not in dispute that the firm has not initiated any further proceedings and thus the demands raised against the firm have attained finality on June 15, 1994. Therefore, June 15, 1994 would be the starting point for computing the limitation prescribed under rule 68B. The contention of the Revenue is that the petitioner had filed a miscellaneous application against the proclamation of sale and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any order staying the recovery, mere filing of the miscellaneous application would not fall in any of the categories specified in rule 68B(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the period during which the miscellaneous application was pending cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation under rule 68B of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the limitation for sale of the attached immovable property commenced from June 15, 1994 and not from May 19, 1998 as erroneously contended by the Revenue. Once it is held that the limitation under rule 68B commences from June 15, 1994, then, the sale held on March 30, 2004 being beyond the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
