9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2002 they purchased the premises from respondent no.5. Admittedly, there were proceedings pending under the Income Tax Act against respondent no.5 on that date. The order of attachment under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act made on 19.6.2002 was lifted sometime in July-2002. Admittedly, on the date of the sale of the property there was no order of attachment. The order of attachment was subsequently passed on 22.10.2003. 3. Respondent no.5 had taken a loan from respondent no.1 and to secure the loan had created a mortgage in favour of respondent no.1. Respondent no.5 has also created leave and license in favour of respondent no.1. The license amounts were to be adjusted against the loan amount advanced by respondent no.1 to respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department by order dated 21.9.2004. Chamber summons was taken out for amendment of the petition and the petition was amended to include amongst other reliefs not to give effect to the orders dated 21.9.2004 and 18.11.2003. 6. The first question that we are called upon to consider is whether it was open for the assessing officer to declare the sale deed between respondent no.5 and the petitioners as null and void, considering section 281 of the Income Tax Act. In our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra having been answered in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tax Recovery Officer v.Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (Decd.) reported in [1998] 234 ITR 188, where the Supreme Court held that if the department finds that a property o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07] 294 ITR 614, the order must be set aside on that ground also. We need not answer these questions at this stage in view of the order to be passed. 9. In so far as first contention, we are of the opinion that the order declaring the sale deed dated 30.7.2002 as null and void was an order without jurisdiction and consequently has to be set aside. The petitioners in the absence of any declaration continue to be the owners of the property, till such times a competent civil Court passes any appropriate order. 10. Let us come to next issue of the TDS certificate not being issued in the name of the petitioners. The learned Counsel points out that in fact, the assessing officer had himself addressed a letter that the TDS certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will take such steps in law including withdrawal of the demand considering that the demand was made, as the TDS certificate was not produced by the petitioners. Hence, following order:- ORDER 13. The sale deed dated 30.7.2002 in the absence of a declaration by a civil court that it is null and void and as observed by the Supreme Court in Tax Recovery Officer v. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (Decd.) [1998] 234 ITR 188 is legal and valid; 14. As the sale is legal and valid, respondent no.1 was bound to issue the TDS certificate in favour of the petitioners from 30.7.2002 onwards and thereafter. The respondent no.1 is therefore, directed to rectify the TDS certificate and accordingly, issue the same in the name of the petitioners herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
