Skip to content


S.V. Muzumdar Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Case Number

C.M. No. 147 of 1998 in C.W.P. No. 954 of 1990

Judge

Reported in

[2000]241ITR481(Delhi)

Acts

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 220; Income Tax Rules - Rule 86; Constitution of India - Article 226

Appellant

S.V. Muzumdar

Respondent

Tax Recovery Officer and ors.

Appellant Advocate

 Rachna Rao, Adv

Respondent Advocate

 R.D. Jolly and ; Ajay Jha, Advs.

Excerpt:


the case dealt with the request for quashing the proclamation of the sale of immovable property by the revenue - it was claimed by the petitioner that he had purchased the property from the respondent after paying the full amount - it was contended that the property purchased by the petitioner was already attached by the income-tax department - as a result, the said proclamation was challenged - it was questioned whether the remedy in the said matter would be a writ petition or an appeal - it was held under schedule ii rule 86, sections 222 and 225 of the income tax act, 1961, that although the petitioner was not the party to the suit, but, he had a right to appeal under rule 86 of the act since he was an aggrieved person - .....purchased the property after the property had already been attached by the income-tax department. so far as the question of grievance of the petitioner against the proclamation of sale by the income-taxdepartment is concerned learned counsel for the department pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against such an order under rule 86 of schedule ii to the income-tax act. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not have any right of appeal under the said rule because the petitioner was not a party to the assessment proceedings. on this aspect learned counsel for the department concedes that the petitioner will also have a right of appeal under rule 86 as he is an aggrieved person. in view of this, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned proclamation. the writ petition is, thereforee, not maintainable. the same is dismissed. interim orders passed in the petition are hereby vacated. no costs.

Judgment:


C.M. No. 147 of 1998 in C.W.P. No. 954 of 1990 :

1. By this application the petitioner has sought information about the status of demand of the Income-tax Department against respondent No. 2. Mr. Jolly, counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3, has stated at the Bar, on instructions from Mr, Sukhdev Singh, Tax Recovery Officer, Patiala, who is present in court, that presently the demand against respondent No. 2 is Rs. 8,27,899. Mr. Jolly further submits that fresh proclamation proposed to be issued will incorporate the revised demand. In view of this statement made by Mr. Jolly this application stands disposed of.

C. W. P. No. 954 of 1990 :

2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the attachment dated February 18, 1988, and the proclamation of sale dated February 26, 1990, with respect to property No. B-3, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased this property from respondent No. 2 after paying full consideration for the same. Learned counsel for the Income-tax Department, however, submits that the petitioner purchased the property after the property had already been attached by the Income-tax Department. So far as the question of grievance of the petitioner against the proclamation of sale by the Income-taxDepartment is concerned learned counsel for the Department pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against such an order under Rule 86 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not have any right of appeal under the said Rule because the petitioner was not a party to the assessment proceedings. On this aspect learned counsel for the Department concedes that the petitioner will also have a right of appeal under Rule 86 as he is an aggrieved person. In view of this, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned proclamation. The writ petition is, thereforee, not maintainable. The same is dismissed. Interim orders passed in the petition are hereby vacated. No costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //