9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the fourth respondents who were minors at the time of execution of the sale agreement on 30.06.1994 ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the subsequent tax liability of the fourth respondent and her husband for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013 -14 cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner, since the petitioner has been diligently litigating since 2004. Therefore, fruits of the decree in a contested suit cannot be denied merely because the seller or one of the persons had incurred subsequent tax liability. The fruits of a decree will date back to the date of the suit. The records also indicate that earlier an application was filed by late Mrs.J.Padmini before the Principal District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as the third and fourth respondent s mother declined to execute sale deed under the sale agreement dated 30.6.1994 - Therefore, there is no justification in not releasing the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who has purchased the property after a long drawn litigation . This Court is inclined to allow this writ petition as prayed for. - W.P.No.33221 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2021 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravi For First Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition has been filed by a senior citizen who is now aged about 70 years. She has been in litigation since 1994 to have the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents along with the third and fourth respondents became subsequent owners of the said property. 6. At the time of execution of the aforesaid sale agreement dated on 30.06.1994, the sale consideration for the property was fixed at ₹ 16,75,000/-. The petitioner is said to have paid an advance amount of ₹ 3,20,000/- to the said late Mrs.J.Padmini at the time of the execution of the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994. After execution of the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994, late Mrs.J.Padmini however refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 7. Since sale deed was not executed by late Mrs.J.Padmini in favour of the Petitioner, despite receipt of advance under the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner also paid the balance sale consideration of ₹ 13,55,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.632 of 2004. The aforesaid E.P.No.22 of 2017 was ordered on 22.02.2018. 13. As the third and fourth respondents failed to come forward to execute the sale deed in terms of the aforesaid sale agreement dated 30.06.1994 and order dated 31.03.2017 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.26881 of 2010, the Learned III Additional District Judge executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.2018 and presented it before the second respondent on 29.06.2018 for registration. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following case laws :- i. Sanjeev Lal and others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon ble Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4827 of 2017 on 31.3.2017. Therefore, the purported sale deed executed by the Court was contrary to Section 281 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. On behalf of the first respondent, it is further submitted that a copy of the attachment order issued on 27.03.2017 in Form No. ITCP-16 was also served on the office of the second respondent an entry of encumbrance in respect of the said property was also entered on 28.03.2017 as is evident from the reading of the encumbrance certificate. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot perfect the title over the property and the second respondent cannot release the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2018 in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that earlier an application in H.M.G.O.P No.433 of 1994 was filed by late Mrs.J.Padmini before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore to obtain court s permission to execute the sale deed. If IT was however withdrawn by her. Thus, the attachment of the property on 27.03.2017 by the officer of the 1st respondent cannot override the commitment under sale agreement dated 30.6.1994. 24. Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies only to a situation where an assessee during the pendency of any proceeding under the Act, or after completion thereof, but before the service of a notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, creates a charge on, or parts with the possession (by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
