Rule 68B limitation and Section 29 recovery procedure: auction sale upheld as timely and procedurally unproven to be invalid.

Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act bars sale of attached immovable property after three years from the end of the financial year in which the demand order becomes final, excluding any period during which proceedings are stayed. In recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that schedule applies only so far as it can operate consistently with the recovery scheme, with necessary modifications. On the stated facts, the auction was held within the permissible period and no substantiated procedural defect in attachment or sale was shown, so the challenge to the sale failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction sale of the attached immovable property was void for having been conducted beyond the time limit under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the recovery provisions and procedure under the Income-tax rules applied to recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: Rule 68B bars sale of attached immovable property after three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand becomes conclusive or final, and periods during which the proceedings are stayed are to be excluded. The order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal became final only after expiry of the appeal period, so the relevant financial year ended later and the sale conducted within that extended period was not time-barred. The attachment and sale were also not shown by material on record to suffer from the alleged procedural defects. Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 incorporates the Income-tax recovery schedule only to the extent it can operate as far as possible with necessary modifications, and the applicable rules are those that can be applied consistently with the recovery scheme under that Act.

Conclusion: The auction sale was not invalid under Rule 68B, and the challenge to the sale and recovery procedure failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed because the sale was held within the statutory time limit and no substantiated procedural illegality was established.

Ratio Decidendi: For recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Rule 68B applies by computing limitation from the end of the financial year in which the order becomes final, with lawful exclusions for stay periods, and a sale made within that period is not void.

---