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.
