TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrears of income tax on account of the individual assessment completed on the petitioner, as also in respect of arrears of tax of the private company, of which the petitioner was a Director, the Tax Recovery Officer made a proclamation for auction of 5.25 Acres of land in Thrissur district belonging to the petitioner. The reserve price of the property was fixed as Rs. 15,75,000/-. The petitioner moved for stay of recovery proceedings and the auction was kept in abeyance subject to payment of Rs. 4 lakhs by 13.02.1995. It is submitted that the petitioner paid the said amount. Thereafter, the Tax Recovery Officer took up the matter with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and sought permission from him for going ahead with the sale. On gett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oideen. As already noted, the Tax Recovery Officer continued with the sale proceedings and on finding that T.A.Moideen, who was the person in whose favour the sale was confirmed, had since died, he contacted the legal heirs of the said T.A.Moideen and, on their remitting the balance amounts, confirmed the sale in their favour by issuing the necessary sale certificates as well. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 15.04.2005 before the Tax Recovery Officer for setting aside the sale in terms of Rule 56 of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was apparently no order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on the said application. This prompted the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Chief Commissioner of Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Subash Chandra Goyal v. Tax Recovery Officer and Others (2002 Vol. 255 ITR 289). 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the sequence of events leading to the sale of the properties by the Tax Recovery Officer, as also the confirmation of the sale and the issuance of the sale certificate, is narrated. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings, also sold her property to Mr.Moideen for Rs. 18,60,000/- as per document No.2152 dated 21.10.2002. 6. I have heard Sri.Anil.D.Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri.Jose Joseph, Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department as also Sri.Sreelal N. Warrier, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal would lie against an order of the Tax Recovery Officer confirming the sale. The said decision proceeds on the basis that, for the purposes of Rule 86, an appeal would lie from any original order passed by the Tax Recovery officer, which is not in the nature of an order that is conclusive, and, therefore, an order by the Tax Recovery Officer confirming the sale, not being one that is made conclusive under Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, the order would be an appealable order for the purposes of Rule 86. In this case, however I note that, as per the scheme of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Income Tax authority for recovery of tax due from an assessee in default, the ....