9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981, dishonestly transferred in October, 1984, his right in what is described as the West Hill Property to M/s. Malabar Produce and Rubber Company Ltd., by execution of registered lease deed and concealed such particulars as also receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs from the company, from the purview of the Department. He also, found that the, petitioner, having had the means to pay the arrears or substantial part thereof, refused or neglected to pay the same. In appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed this order. The petitioner owned two properties in Calicut, one 60 cents in Sy. No. 25/3 of Kacheri amsom (West Hill Property) and another having an extent of 84 cents in Nedungottoor amsom called the Kara South Bungalow. This latter property had been acquired and an amount of Rs. 4,20,970 had been deposited in the Sub-Court, Calicut, as compensation. There are various claimants for payment out of this amount, namely, the Tahsildar, Kozhikode, for Rs. 1,79,884 for revenue arrears, the Corporation of Calicut for Rs. 32,961 for arrears of property tax, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation for Rs. 13,403 as per the decree passed by the Munsiff-II, Calicut, besides the Tali Devaswom for valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Officer who is the authority to issue the same. However, these facts are being referred to only because the petitioner has a grievance that he could not pay off the amounts due to the Department because of the refusal of clearance certificate. The petitioner's complaint that the clearance certificate has been wrongfully withheld cannot be gone into at this stage for another reason as well. This is because the Income-tax Officer appears to have refused the clearance certificate, even after the order in O. P. No. 4877 of 1986, as can be seen from paragraph 3 of the order, exhibit P-4, as also paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent. If he is aggrieved by such refusal, it is up to the petitioner to resort to proceedings warranted by law in relation to the same. The petitioner's offer to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs out of Rs. 5 lakhs to be received from the Malabar Produce and Rubber Company Ltd. appears to have been made on March 20, 1985. At that stage, the petitioner had not disclosed to the Department the fact that he had leased out this property to the aforesaid company in October, 1984, and also received an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from them. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparently satisfied with this explanation and he has stated that the story of loans taken from friends and relatives itself made its appearance only after the Department discovered that the sale consideration for the West Hill property was fixed at Rs. 9.75 lakhs as against Rs. 5 lakhs intimated to the Department. If so, the alleged payment to Don Bosco Enterprises and Ittyavira cannot save the petitioner from the operation of clause (b) of rule 73(1) inasmuch as the petitioner had substantial amounts with him with which he should have paid a substantial part of the dues to the Department. The petitioner's contention in reply is that he made the payments as the claims of these alleged creditors were pressing. Nothing has been brought out in the pleadings or otherwise to show that the dues to these creditors had to be paid urgently or that their demands were such that the petitioner stood in peril of great jeopardy otherwise. It is not as if the petitioner was met with urgent necessity or pressing claims in making these alleged payments to Don Bosco Enterprises and Ittyavira even assuming that those payments were genuine and valid. The decision relied on by the petitioner in Jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en kept back from the Department for a very long time. In fact, it came out only when the Department discovered that the sale price was Rs. 9.75 lakhs and not Rs. 5 lakhs. It is obvious that the petitioner has not been acting honestly in relation to the Department. The facts set out by the second respondent in paragraph 3 of exhibit P-4 and by the first respondent in paragraph 4(iii) to (v) clearly establish that the petitioner was dishonest in his dealings with the Department and had not made a full and frank disclosure of his dealings, receipts and others. His obvious attempt in the first instance was to conceal the receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs. Even in relation to the proceedings under section 230A, it can be seen that the petitioner has been shifting his position from time to time and had also made misrepresentations. In this connection, I may just mention that the petitioner's case was that if the clearance certificate was issued in relation to the West Hill property, he will be able to pay Rs. 1.14 lakhs to the Department and get complete clearance of the Kara South Bungalow which can be proceeded against by the Department for recovery of the dues. Actually, there were numerous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
