9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered thereafter along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent., as provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ; (d) prohibiting respondents Nos. 4 and 5 from taking any action or recovery in respect of the alleged outstanding demands against the petitioner for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 from his relatives and as a whole from the petitioner ; (e) directing the income-tax authorities to hold the properties standing in the names of relatives of the petitioner as belonging to them and not to the petitioner ; and (f) rental income from properties belonging to the relatives of the petitioner attached under section 281B be held as invalid and the attachment orders be quashed. In view of some changes that took place subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the recovery made from the petitioner should now be refunded to him with interest as permissible under the law. As regards this, paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Income-tax Department states that in view of the disposal of appeal by the Central Income-tax Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88, there are no coercive measures by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as regards recovery in question until fresh assessments are made, for the same period. As regards the attachment of rent by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 8,41,142.85, it is stated that though there are no demands outstanding against the petitioner for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88, there are demands outstanding to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble ground to have the illegally recovered amount of money in question to be adjusted against any subsequent and entirely fresh assessments made in respect of entirely different assessment years. As mentioned above in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Income-tax Department, there is a demand outstanding to the tune of Rs. 39,29,494 for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1988-89. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that the aforesaid amount is as a result of fresh assessment made against the petitioner, whereas the amount already recovered to the tune of Rs. 8,41,142.85 belongs to the relatives of the petitioner and, therefore, this amount should not be allowed to be adjusted against any future assessment in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned above. Mr. Sarma states that an appeal has already been filed. Mr. Saikia further submits that since the assessment of Rs. 39,29,494 has already been made against the petitioner, it is in the interest of justice to allow the Department to adjust the money already held by it against the present assessment. It is also further submitted by Mr. Saikia that it is still open to the Income-tax Department to make reassessment of income-tax of the petitioner for the periods 1986 to 1988. As regards this submission, it may be stated that since no such fresh assessments have been made, it is not necessary for me to enter into this issue. According to Mr. Saikia the question of ownership of properties has already been proved by the Department base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
