Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the attachment of immovable properties purchased by the petitioners from the assessee could be sustained under the recovery provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the light of the protection for bona fide purchasers and the limitation prescribed for sale of attached immovable property.
Analysis: The petitioners had purchased the properties for valuable consideration after the relevant assessment-related events, were in possession, and were unrelated to the defaulting assessee. The statutory scheme distinguishes assessment from recovery: once a certificate is drawn up, recovery proceeds under the Second Schedule. Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 protects transfers made for adequate consideration without notice of pending proceedings or tax dues, and the recovery rules empower attachment only within the framework of the Second Schedule. The decisive limitation was Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, which prescribes a time limit for sale of attached immovable property. As that period had long expired and no recovery action was taken within the prescribed time, the continued attachment could not be justified. The reliance on Rule 16 was rejected as misconceived in the facts.
Conclusion: The attachment could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioners.