9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961. Transfer form was filed with the society on July 23, 1986, itself on which day an application for membership was also filed. Another application was made to the society for the transfer of the premises in favour of the petitioners on August 11, 1986. Before the premises were transferred in favour of the petitioners, the Income-tax Officer served notice dated December 29, 1986, issued under section 226(3) on the society requiring it not to transfer the shares to Hirasingh Ramchand in the society to any person as the said Hirasingh Ramchand was an assessee in default for a sum of Rs. 4,55,990 plus interest. Transfer of shares, in turn, meant transfer of the premises. On receipt of the aforesaid notice from the Income-tax Officer on Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O [1976] 102 ITR 724, he further stated, held that income-tax dues from a partnership firm could not be recovered from partner under the Income-tax Act. He urged that the impugned notice was invalid and must, therefore, be quashed. Mrs. Singh, learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, placed reliance on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Department. Respondent No. 4 society did not appear, though served. Mrs. Singh fairly admitted that the assessee in default is the partnership firm. However, according to her, income-tax due from the partnership firm can always be recovered from a partner as the partners are liable for the debts of the firm jointly and severally. Referring to the averments in the counter-affidavit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners. If the society refuses to transfer the suit premises in the name of the petitioners on the basis of the impugned notice, the petitioners have to take appropriate proceedings against the society. This court cannot certainly issue any injunction on the society. Nor can it quash the impugned notice as nothing is wrong with the impugned notice as such. It is not necessary to examine the contention that a partner's property cannot be attached under section 226(3) for tax due from the partnership firm in this case as the impugned notice attaches the firm's property only, if any. The other contention as regards the validity of a notice under section 226(3) before issue of certificate under section 222 cannot also be examined in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
