9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent firm. The said communications stated that the sum of Rs. 11,67,000 deposited by the assessee by a demand draft has been appropriated towards the arrears of income-tax/wealth-tax due from the late Sri S. Channaiah and the entire one-third share of the sale proceeds has been appropriated towards the arrears as per the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the original petition, there is also a prayer to direct respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 11,67,000 with interest thereon from the date of deposit to the date of refund. Padmanabhan J., in a very detailed judgment dated November 19, 1991 (Kurumber Betta Estate v. Fourth ITO [1992] 197 ITR 499 (Ker)), allowed the original petition with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1971, was indebted to the Income-tax Department. For realising the arrears, the Revenue issued a certificate dated June 12, 1968, and the one-third share of Channaiah in the partnership assets was kept under attachment by exhibit P-2 order, dated December 28, 1968. Nearly ten years thereafter, by exhibit P-7, dated January 5, 1978, the Income-tax Officer, Mysore, demanded the tax due from Channaiah. There was only a bare demand . The firm wanted to sell its estate in Tamil Nadu for Rs. 35 lakhs. A tax clearance certificate was necessary. The firm offered to deposit the one-third share of Channaiah out of the net surplus after deducting the liabilities of the firm. The request was not granted. Even so, by exhibit P-14, the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.67 lakhs deposited, the net one-third share of Channaiah will only be Rs. 1.46 lakhs after meeting the liabilities of Rs. 30,59,388.39 as on March 31, 1985. A request was made to refund the excess amount. By exhibit P-25 communication dated January 18, 1990, the Revenue informed the petitioner that there is no question of deducting the liabilities. Again, by exhibit P-29, dated March 12, 1990, the Tax Recovery Officer informed the firm, the assessee, that the entire amount remitted was appropriated towards the tax liability of Channaiah. It was in these circumstances that the respondent-firm filed the original petition to quash exhibits P-25 and P-29 and to direct the respondents to refund the amount due and the learned single judge allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and accepted in that office. Based on these premises, highlighted in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment in the original petition and also placing reliance on the decisions of courts, the learned single judge held that part of the cause of action arose at Cochin. We concur with the said view. The first plea regarding want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain the original petition is negatived. The second and the only other plea was that the deposit having been made, the assessee-firm could not ask for refund of any portion of the amount. The learned single judge highlighted the fact that, before and after deposit was made, the assessee-firm was making it clear that deposit was made subject to the right to claim liabilities. Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
