Case Law Details
K.N. Subramaniam Vs PCIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. Thus, court directed petitioner to institute suit in a civil court to establish right over disputed property.
Facts- The fourth respondent’s Return of Income Tax for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 resulted in a demand of tax arrears for a sum of Rs.20,69,529/- along with interest u/s. 220(2) of Rs.41,390/- for A.Y. 2008-09 and a sum of Rs.16,21,470/- along with interest u/s. 220(2) of Rs.32,428/- for A.Y. 2009-10.
As the fourth respondent failed to pay the arrears of tax, the property of the fourth respondent were attached vide order dated 25.05.2012 in Form ITCP No.16 issued by the Income Tax Department.
However, it appears that petitioner and the fourth respondent had earlier entered into a Sale Agreement dated 19.02.2009 for the sale of one of the property. The Income Tax Department had attached the said property on 25.05.2012. Meanwhile, the sale deed dated 24.02.2012 was registered/executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner which was registered as Document No.1981/2012. The fourth respondent has stoutly denied the execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 24.02.2012 in favour of the petitioner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
