9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on November 6, 1983. The said concern had loan and/or overdraft transactions with the Bank of Madurai. The bank filed Suit No. 2626 of 1983 in this court against the said concern. On a notice of motion at the instance of the bank, a receiver was appointed to take possession of the flat. On August 29, 1986, there was a compromise between the Bank of Madurai and the said concern. Consent terms were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of attachment was lifted by a subsequent order passed by the Income-tax Officer dated September 26, 1986. On the date of the agreement, i.e., on September 27, 1986, the said concern and the petitioners sent a statement in Form No. 37EE (rule 48DD) to the office of the Competent Authority as required under section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This statement was received in the office of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r case, vide reply dated November 12, 1987, giving as many as six reasons as to why the sale of the flat to them could not be treated as void. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, however, passed the impugned order on December 4, 1987, without even referring to the petitioners' explanation to the show-cause notice addressed to Messrs. System Communications. Opportunity of hearing was admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, without notice of such tax or other sum payable by the assessee shall not be void. The petitioners are, thus, a necessary party to the proceedings under section 281. It is they who have purchased the flat from the said concern on the basis of permission granted by this court. Prima facie they have taken all precautions expected of them. Moreover, being a party adversely affected, they sent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout any merit particularly as the petitioners had sent reply to the show-cause notice even though the notice was not addressed to them. It was the demand of principles of natural justice that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have not only considered their reply but should also have given them an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order which affected them most advers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
