9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear is also wrong. All this has been taken into account for the purpose of declaring his client as an assessee in default to proceed to sell his properties. There is no indication as to how such separation of valuations attributed to individual plots was made by the Recovery Officer, either from the documents of valuation on record or from the statement itself. Petitioner submits that there should be interference by reason of both counts of challenge being upheld. The appropriate reliefs should be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the auction purchaser who is the petitioner wants to make his submissions. His submissions will be heard after submissions made on behalf of the Revenue ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form of a tabular statement running from pages 26 to 31 of the said supplementary affidavit. Referring to pages 26 and 27 Mr. Khaitan points out that for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 interest demanded under Section 215 as per certificates of demand dated 14th March, 2000 and 15th March, 2004 was a sum of ₹ 19,655/- in aggregate. That demand became enhanced to actual demand of ₹ 2,23,982/- which was not permissible in law. So far as assessment year 1982-83 is concerned the demand for interest under Section 215 by the said certificates was the sum of ₹ 73,115/- in aggregate which was wrongly increased to become actual demand of the sum of ₹ 3,74,596/-. He submits that would have an adverse effect as against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the principal amounts for charging further interest under Section 220(2) in the said two assessment years as would appear from pages 26 and 27 in the supplementary affidavit, being part of the said intimation. Thus, the actual demands of ₹ 3,93,838/- and ₹ 6,83,355/- for the said respective assessment years were much more than was the certificate demands. The enhanced portion over and above the said certificate demands were, therefore, bad. He relies on the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 in particular Section 3(1)(a) therein to submit that for the enhanced portion a separate demand by certificate was necessary to have been made by the Revenue which was not made. He submits furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the sale of properties belonging to his client, Mr. Khaitan submits, the properties of his brother and himself were clubbed together for sale to recover the dues outstanding from them. He refers to the orders of attachment both dated 31st January, 2005 in respect of his client s property. He submits his client had individual plot holdings in plot nos. 310, 527 and 528 in Mouza Goari. Plot no. 489 situated in the said Mouza was jointly owned by his brother and himself. The several plots in Mouza Rui Pukur were also jointly owned by his brother and himself. The notice dated 8th February, 2006 for settling a sale proclamation issued to his client gave the specification of properties to be those plots jointly held in Mouza Rui Pukur and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale, to demonstrate that the indication of the figures of reserve price given in the said subsequent disclosure by the Revenue in the page undisputed also did not tally with the original received by his client and produced in Court. He refers to another disclosure made in the said supplementary affidavit used by the Revenue to show that the Tax Recovery Officer had made a statement giving particulars of reserve prices against individual plots. There is no indication as to how such separation of valuations attributed to individual plots was made by the Recovery Officer, either from the documents of valuation on record or from the statement itself. He then refers to the auction sale notice published in the newspaper appearing at page 150 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the recovery certificate must be in respect of arrears which are due from the defaulter. In rule 8 the method of distribution of the proceeds of the execution are set out. Under clause (a) the Income-tax Officer is paid the cost incurred by him. Under clause (b), the Income-tax Officer is paid the amount due under the certificate in execution of which the amounts are realised. Now, if a sale proclamation is drawn up clubbing together dues under two certificates which relate not to one but to two defaulters, the result would be that the sale proceeds of the property of one defaulter would be utilised under rule 8(b) for payment of dues of another assessee. To put such an interpretation on rule 8(b) would be ascribing unreasonableness on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
