TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders partial payment to stop house sale; full payment releases property from attachment</h1> <h3>R. Prabhakar Reddy Versus The Tax Recovery Officer, The Income Tax Department By its Commissioner</h3> The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed demand within two weeks and the remaining amount within six weeks to stay the sale of ... Stay on demand - recovery notice - auction of the residential house - Held that:- As the demand in question not being under challenge and the petitioner – assessee ought to have paid the said demand in due course of time itself, however, looking to the fact that the residential house of the petitioner is intended to be sold by the Income Tax Department for recovery of the said dues and the market value of the said residential house is stated to be much more than the demand in question, it is directed by disposing of the present writ petition itself that if the petitioner – assessee deposits 50% of the disputed demand, i.e. ₹ 1,46,58,192/-, i.e. ₹ 75.00 lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and the remaining entire amount within six weeks from today, then the auction of the residential house of the petitioner, situated at No.1749, 25th cross, off 19th Main Road, 20th Main, Sector II, Hosur Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout), Bangalore-560102 may not be undertaken and finalized. Issues:1. Challenge to demand of Income Tax for Assessment Year 2012-13.2. Proclamation of sale of residential house by Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Petitioner's request to deposit 50% of the demand to stay the sale.Analysis:1. The petitioner did not challenge the demand of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13. However, a proclamation of sale of the petitioner's residential house was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under Sections 222 and 223 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,46,58,192. The petitioner offered to deposit 50% of the demand within two weeks and the remaining 50% within six weeks to seek indulgence from the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stay the sale.2. The Court acknowledged that the demand was not under challenge, and the petitioner should have paid it on time. Despite this, considering the imminent sale of the residential house by the Income Tax Department and the property's market value exceeding the demand, the Court directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed demand (Rs. 75.00 lakhs) within two weeks and the remaining amount within six weeks, the auction of the residential house located in Bangalore may not proceed.3. The Court specified certain conditions: i) No extension of time for deposit shall be allowed; ii) Failure to deposit the entire amount within the stipulated timeframe will result in the dismissal of the writ petition, allowing authorities to recover the amount with further interest; iii) Upon full payment, the Tax Recovery Officer Assessing Authority shall release the residential property from attachment as per the law.4. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the mentioned conditions and observations, emphasizing that no costs were to be incurred. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Respondents promptly for compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
