https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22928 Forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit under rule 58 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act is not automatic on default in payment under rule 57(2); the Tax Recovery Officer must exercise a judicial discretion and consider the relevant facts and circumstances. The impugned forfeiture order was defective because it treated forfeiture as a matter of course, ignored the pending rule 60 application and the plea that a further deposit had been made within time, and recorded no finding on the alleged third payment. The forfeiture order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision on whether forfeiture was warranted and, if so, to what extent. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22928 Forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit under rule 58 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act is not automatic on default in payment under rule 57(2); the Tax Recovery Officer must exercise a judicial discretion and consider the relevant facts and circumstances. The impugned forfeiture order was defective because it treated forfeiture as a matter of course, ignored the pending rule 60 application and the plea that a further deposit had been made within time, and recorded no finding on the alleged third payment. The forfeiture order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision on whether forfeiture was warranted and, if so, to what extent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22928