9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 4 admeasuring 2403 sq. ft. (with 1437 sq. ft. of Mezzanine floor) in Virwani Plaza at Pune in June, 1988. The defaulter paid the earnest money for procuring the said allotment. On January 23, 1997, an ITCP-1 was served for recovery of the outstanding demand. In June, 1997, the defaulter paid the balance money to the builder and obtained the possession of the said shop. In July, 1998, the petitioner purchased rights, title and interest of the defaulter in the said shop. Sale deed was executed between the builders and the petitioners for sale of the said shop in November, 1998, with the defendants as a confirming party. The Tax Recovery Officer at Pune under the certificate from Tax Recovery Officer, Ward 18, Mumbai, attached the said sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Supreme Court in TRO v. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (Decd.) [1998] 234 ITR 188, that it was not open to respondent No. 3 to have passed the order declaring the transaction to be void and, secondly, it is submitted that at any rate that order was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner herein. As the order involved civil consequences, the petitioner at least ought to have been given an opportunity to point out that the order proposed to be passed by respondent No. 3 could not have been passed. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents, their learned counsel contends that considering the terminology of section 281 it was not open to respondent No. 3 to have made that order: Section 281 reads as under: "Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 281, the Department being in the position of a creditor will have to file a suit for a declaration that the transaction of transfer is void under section 281 of the Income-tax Act." Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court, it will be clear that the action of respondent No. 3 in declaring that the transfer of property in favour of the petitioners be void is clearly without jurisdiction. The impugned order also attracted civil consequences. Respondent No. 3 before passing any such order ought to have given opportunity to petitioners if in law respondent No. 3 could exercise jurisdiction under section 281. That opportunity was also not given. The order, therefore, must also be set aside for violation of the principles of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
