9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequential act i.e. attachment order dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 under Rule 48 of the second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 alleging the same as illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondents. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners took the property on 99 years' lease from one Ram Niwas s/o Sh. Ram Chander son of Lachhman, resident of Mohalla Sainian, Hisar Tehsil and Distt. Hisar who had purchased this property from one Chandrawali widow of late Shri Nand Ram, resident of Mohalla Sainian near Saini Athai, Hisar. In pursuance of the registered lease deed and with a view to get permanent and perpetual title over the said property three sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners on 4.3.2003, 4.3.2003 and 13.6.2003 for the aforementioned property at a price of Rs.4.5. lakhs per acre. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of buying the aforementioned property they had made enquiries from the office of the Registrar and had verified the antecedents and purchased the property by paying all the statutory dues of stamp duty etc. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to get the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 281 of the Act. In the said representation, the petitioners have clearly stated that they are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question for adequate consideration and without notice and further that before buying the land in question they had examined the original sale deeds and Income Tax Clearance Certificate dated 22.7.1999 issued by the Department in favour of Sh. Ram Niwas and found it to be in order. It was also stated by the petitioners that there is no tax liability against them and the Income Tax Department is estopped by its own act and conduct from passing the impugned order, firstly because they did not pass any order for provisional attachment of the land in question before initiating the alleged proceedings for assessment of Income Tax liability of Smt. Chandrawali as provided under Section 281 (B) of the Act and secondly, because the Department itself issued the Income Tax Clearance Certificate on 22.7.1999 to Smt. Chandrawali and permitted her to sell the land in question to Ram Niwas. It is also stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the proviso to Section 281 of the Act covers the case of the petitioners as the land in question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of her husband on 20.1.1999 some people had fraudulently got the said land transferred in their favour without making any payment. Thus, it has been stated by the respondents-authorities that the Tax Recovery Officer invoked the provisions of Section 281 of the Act and declared the transfer of land as null and void and issued an order of attachment of immovable property of Smt. Chandrawali vide notice dated 14.7.2003 prohibiting and restraining the further transfer of properties and later on an order of attachment dated 7.6.2004 in respect of the said land was also issued to Tehsildar, Hisar requesting him not to allow the present owner of the properties to part with the possession of these properties as the transfer/sale dated 22.7.1999 has been treated as null and void. It has been admitted that the Department has filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court at Hisar for declaring the sale of immovable property made on 22.7.1999 by Smt. Chandrawali in favour of Ram Niwas as void and the same is pending and therefore the Tax Recovery Officer/Income Tax Officer is entitled to attach and sell the agriculture land which has been fraudulently transferred vide sale deed dated 22.7.1999 by Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awali in favour of Ram Niwas as null and void which is pending and the title or rights of the Department qua the petitioners can only be decided in the said civil suit. Thus, in view of this fact alone the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department under Section 281 of the Act and issuance of notice Annexure P-1 cannot be sustained. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel for the revenue, has defended the action of the respondent-Department. 11. We find considerable force in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of Annexure P-3 i.e. Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Department in favour of Smt. Chandrawali for the sale of land in question to Sh. Ram Niwas (i.e. from whom the petitioners have purchased the land in question) clearly indicates that no liability was outstanding against Smt. Chandrawali on the date of issuance of the said Income Tax Clearance Certificate. It is also not contested by the Department that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute. They have purchased the land for a consideration and after making due enquiry about the clear title of the vendor. Section 281 subsection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
