9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent of 1/2 share in the Dal Factory, Jawaharke Road, Mansa. The other 1/2 share of the said property was owned by a third party. The Income-tax Officer issued orders dated October 29, 1959, March 22, 1961, and March 26, 1962, etc., to the Tax Recovery Officer (for short "the TRO"), Bhatinda, respondent No. 3, for recovering the aforesaid arrears against the defaulter respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The Tax Recovery Officer accordingly attached 1/2 share in the aforesaid Dal Factory, Mansa, belonging to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 along with other properties vide order dated November 20, 1961, and January 10, 1962. Proclamation of the attached properties was issued on May 15, 1968, fixing the auction for June 19/20/21, 1968. However, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 under rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, requested the Tax Recovery Officer, Bhatinda, to permit them to sell a 1/2 share of the Dal Factory by private sale instead of public auction. The Tax Recovery Officer acceded to their request and settled the terms with the defaulters and permitted them to sell 1/2 share in the Dal Factory to Ram Pal, petitioner, vide order dated April 26, 1980, annexure P-1. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 were estopped to challenge the said order by the principle of promissory estoppel. On June 24, 1983, notice of motion was issued in this writ petition. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 appeared and ultimately after hearing the parties, the writ petition was admitted vide order dated October 10, 1983. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed separate replies. In fact respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint reply while respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed separate replies. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order annexure P-8 dated January 24, 1983, passed by Shri V. P. Bhagat, Tax Recovery Commissioner, Jalandhar, was illegal as he had no authority to hear the appeal. In my opinion, there is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Under rule 86 of the Second Schedule, the only officer on whom powers of the Tax Recovery Commissioner in sub-clause (iii) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act have been conferred has got jurisdiction to hear appeal against the order of Tax Recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 3 contended that all powers which were exercised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, as the Tax Recovery Commissioner on bifurcation came to be exercised automatically by the Commissioners of Income-tax, Jalandhar, Amritsar and Rohtak, etc. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is not tenable. The powers which were earlier exercised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, as the Tax Recovery Commissioner could not be exercised automatically by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar without, a notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers Conferred by rule 4 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 next contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner (Income-tax), Jalandhar, with his eyes open and had submitted himself to his jurisdiction. So, he is estopped from pleading that the Tax Recovery Commissioner, Jalandhar, had no jurisdiction to pass the order. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is also not tenable. Even if, the petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of so called Tax Recovery Commissioner, Jalandhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrears of income-tax standing against them under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act as on April 1, 1979, excluding interest. The said 1/2 share along with other properties was attached on November 20, 1961, and January 10, 1962, by the Tax Recovery Officer. Proclamation for the sale of the aforesaid property along with other properties was issued on May 15, 1968, fixing the auction for June 19/20/21, 1968. The sale was, however, postponed as Kanwar Sain Bansal on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 requested the Tax Recovery Officer to allow him to raise the amount by way of private sale. Subsequently, Ram Pal, petitioner, undertook to be the surety for payment of income-tax arrears in the cases of M/s. Hari Singh (HUF) and M/s. Sant Singh (HUF). He also declared that Kanwar Sain Bansal of M/s. Hari Singh (HUF) had made an agreement to sell a 1/2 share in the Dal Factory and that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000 against the abovesaid purchase which amount had-been duly deposited against the arrears of the aforesaid parties. He further undertook on April 16, 1980, that after transfer of the aforesaid property in his name for which a request had already been made by Kanwar Sain B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
