1990 (7) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gistered partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated June 19, 1987, issued by respondent No. 2, Tax Recovery Officer, C-W Ward, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Bombay-400 027. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale dated August 18, 1984, with Bharat Parikh and Co., in respect of premises No. 617, Parikh Market, Opera House, Bombay-400 004, for a consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hey are concerned, they had purchased the premises for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of any proceedings against Bharat Parikh and Co. and that the so-called attachment was bad and, illegal. By his impugned letter/notice dated June 19, 1987, respondent No. 2, however, informed the petitioners that he was holding recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 6,02,453 in respe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from Bharat Parikh and Co. was furnished to the competent authority in Form N . 37EE and the Income-tax Department did not take any steps for more than two years. The petitioners' case, thus, was that they had purchased the premises for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of any such proceedings. Dr. Balasubramanian for the Department, on the other hand, stated that the Inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) of the proviso to section 281 to show that if the petitioners were to purchase the property without risk, they should have taken prior permission of the Income-tax Officer. This was admittedly not done by the petitioners. In my judgment, the petition has merit. Admittedly, the petitioners and Bharat Parikh and Co. jointly filed Form No. 37EE (under rule 48DD) in the office of the competent aut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n an affidavit-in-reply has not been filed though this writ petition was filed in 1987. In the above view of the matter, I am inclined to take the view that the Department has no case for attachment of the premises in question which belongs to the petitioners since August, 1984. The petitioners purchased the premises for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of any proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X