9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The property was sold for price far less than the reserve price. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had informed the Tax Recovery Officer that he had filed an appeal and taken other proceedings for challenging the amount of arrears of taxes mentioned in the recovery certificate. The petitioner had succeeded in getting the amount of arrears reduced by the income-tax authorities. The Tax Recovery Officer thereupon on March 9, 1984, that is, a day next to the date of auction sale, forwarded the recovery certificate to the income-tax authorities for rectification. On March 16, 1984, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 complaining about the holding of the auction sale and disposing of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , while admitting the petition, directed the petitioner to deposit with respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 16,82,225 which according to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was due from the petitioner towards the arrears of taxes. This amount was ascertained by the income-tax authorities as the amount due after the relief secured by the petitioner from the higher authorities, the result of which was that the amount of arrears of Rs. 37,98,451 stood reduced to Rs. 16,82,225. The petitioner accordingly deposited the amount with respondent No. 1 on June 28, 1984. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that the auction sale held in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 is required to be set aside under rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule to the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Recovery Officer cannot be accepted because it was not for the Tax Recovery Officer to determine what was the amount due. Indeed, it has been subsequently found that the amount due was Rs. 16,82,225. Shri Dhanuka is, therefore, right in submitting that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. But, in my judgment, the petitioner has already filed an application under rule 61 on March 16, 1984. The petitioner by addressing a letter to the Tax Recovery Officer had complained that the property was knocked down for Rs. 8,70,000 in spite of the reserved price fixed at Rs. 15 lakhs. That being a serious irregularity, the petitioner was entitled to claim that the auction s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Recovery Officer should dispose of the application of the petitioner under rule 61 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ. The amount of Rs. 16,82,225 deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 shall be considered as a deposit made by the petitioner under rule 61(b). Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the decision communicated by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on April 20, 1984, that the auction sale has become final is set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, on merits and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
