9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 was her tenant in respect of these godowns and the rent was due to her and not to the other assessees named in the said notices and accordingly the ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the said notices in connection with the recovery proceedings relating to persons other than herself. Her case is that respondent No. 1 having taken the godowns on lease from her is estopped from disputing her title. According to the petitioner the proceedings taken by the ITO under s. 226(3) at the instance of the U.P. State. Warehousing Corporation are ultra vires and the said Corporation is legally bound to pay the rent due to the petitioner instead of to the ITO in compliance with the said notices. The facts appearing on the record are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is second wife and there are several sons by her as well. It appears that a number of business concerns, being partnerships as well as HUF firms, have from time to time been formed with different sets of members of this family as members or partners. The names of the concerns brought out in the affidavits and their annexures are : HUF firms by the names of: (a) Hira Lal Mittal, (b) Satya Prakash Mittal, (c) Maya Prakash Mittal, (d) Ved Prakash Mittal. Partnership firms by the names of (a) Hira Lal and Company, (b) Hira Lal and Sons, (c) Hira Lal Warehousing Corporation. Almost simultaneously with the of the inception tenancy the respondent-Corporation was flooded with conflicting claims about the ownership of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. Having regard to the material on the record it appears that the facts are very much in dispute. The plea of estoppel founded on s. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act could arise only when it was first established that the respondent-Corporation had initially been admitted into possession of the godowns as tenant by the petitioner. That is still an open question. On the plea of fact raised by the respondent-Corporation it could not be expected to have filed an objection under cl. (vi) of s. 226(3) before the ITO contending that the amounts of rent were owed by it not to the assessees but to the petitioner. So far as the ITO was concerned, he proceeded on the basis of the prima facie evidence supplied to him by the respondent-Corporati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
