Court validates mortgage transfer, interprets Income Tax Act, affirms creditor's right to sell.

The court upheld the validity of the transfer of mortgage, interpreted Section 281 of the Income Tax Act to allow for the transfer, and affirmed the respondent's right to sell the properties to recover dues as a secured creditor.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the transfer of mortgage by the borrower to the respondent - Corporation.
2. Interpretation of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the voidability of transfers during pendency of proceedings.
3. Dispute over the attachment of immovable properties by the Tax Recovery Officer for tax dues.

Issue 1: Validity of the transfer of mortgage
The respondent, a State-owned Corporation, sanctioned a term loan to a borrower for a luxury hotel project. The borrower later transferred the loan to another entity, creating an equitable mortgage in favor of the respondent. The borrower also created an equitable mortgage over additional properties. The Tax Recovery Officer attached the properties to recover tax dues, which was challenged in court. The appellant argued that the transfer of mortgage was void ab initio, making the respondent ineligible to challenge the attachment.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act
Section 281 of the Income Tax Act declares transfers during pending proceedings void, unless made for adequate consideration and without notice of the proceedings. The appellant contended that the transfer of mortgage was void, citing Section 281. However, the court disagreed, citing the proviso to Section 281 which exempts transfers made for adequate consideration and without notice of pending tax dues. The court found that the transfer in this case met these criteria, making it valid and not void under Section 281.

Issue 3: Dispute over attachment of immovable properties
The Tax Recovery Officer had attached the properties to recover tax dues, but the court ruled in favor of the respondent. The court noted that the respondent was a secured creditor with a first charge over the properties. The Tax Recovery Officer acknowledged this priority in a letter, allowing the respondent to proceed with the sale of properties to recover dues. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's right to sell the properties and prioritize the repayment of dues.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the transfer of mortgage, interpreted Section 281 of the Income Tax Act to allow for the transfer in question, and affirmed the respondent's right to sell the properties to recover dues as a secured creditor.

---