2011 (4) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... office of the Sub Registrar concerned that there was no encumbrance in respect of the said property. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the third respondent and his son, on 2.5.2007, having paid an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had paid a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the third respondent, as part of the sale consideration. While so, the petitioner had come to know that the property in question, belonging to the third respondent, had been attached by the income tax department, due to the non payment of tax arrears by the third respondent. The request made by the petitioner to release the property in question from attachment had been rejected by the order of the second respondent, dated 22.1.2010. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the tax arrears by the third respondent.   4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that no notice had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to him even though he is a bona fide agreement holder, in respect of the property in question. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent is liable to be set aside.   5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:   1) Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Gangadha Viswanath Ranade (1998 Vol.234 ITR 188).   2) Ashok Chawla V. DIT [(2009) 176 Tax man 202 (Delhi)]   3) Vishwanath Agarwala V. TRO [(2009)182 Taxman 327/225 CTR (Cal.)358] &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed, in limine.   8. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and on considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. The attachment of the property in question by the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department, which had been made in accordance with the procedures established b....