https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18226 The Court upheld the order dismissing the appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner (Devaki Ammal) seeking to set aside the sale of immovable property due to non-compliance with the deposit requirement under rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the deposit should precede the consideration of the application for setting aside the sale, even though the arrears were paid during the pendency of the writ petition. The appeal was rejected, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition for failure to comply with the deposit requirement. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:47:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18226 The Court upheld the order dismissing the appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner (Devaki Ammal) seeking to set aside the sale of immovable property due to non-compliance with the deposit requirement under rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the deposit should precede the consideration of the application for setting aside the sale, even though the arrears were paid during the pendency of the writ petition. The appeal was rejected, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition for failure to comply with the deposit requirement. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18226