S Venkataramanan Vs PCIT (Madras High Court)
Firm’S Property, Firm’S Notice-Individual Partners Need Separate Notice Only When Their Personal Assets Are Targeted U/s 188A & Second Schedule
Background
Assessment orders were passed against M/s RJK Investments, a partnership firm, for AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12. The firm challenged only the assessment for AY 2009-10, whose appeal was disposed of on 23 August 2016.
Following the assessments, demands u/s 156 were raised. On the firm’s failure to pay, the TRO drew recovery certificates u/s 222 & issued notices under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule. Proceedings were thereafter initiated to attach & sell the firm’s immovable properties.
Four connected writ petitions arose from this recovery. Partner S. Venkataramanan sought consideration of his objections & challenged the auction-sale notice dated 18 December 2025. Another partner sought a direction to sell specified assets of the firm. The successful auction purchaser, S. Sajin Kumar, sought confirmation of the auction held on 28 January 2026 & issuance of the sale certificate.
Partner’s Objections
Venkataramanan contended that he was merely a working partner & was neither a managing partner nor a signatory to the firm’s income-tax returns. He alleged that notices relating to recovery proceedings had not been personally served upon him, thereby violating Rules 49 & 53 of the Second Schedule.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Unlock All Premium Judgments
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.


