TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s late father. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Tax Recovery Officer holding that the property belonging to the petitioner which has been attached, for the Income Tax dues payable by his late father. 3. Mr. Vipul Joshi. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that after the property and the bank accounts of the petitioner were attached, the petitioner moved an application by letter dated 13.4.2012 to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax making grievance regarding attachment of the petitioner's property and his bank accounts for recovery of income tax dues payable by his late father. The petitioner in the aforesaid communication did not formerly refer to his applications....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e belonged to the petitioner's late father. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.9.2012 as being one without jurisdiction. 7. Thereafter on 15.5.2014, the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax disposed of the petitioner's appeal (filed as grievances) under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule to the Act by holding as follows:- (a) The order dated 25.9.2012 of the Tax Recovery Officer having been passed under Rule 11 of Second Schedule of the Act is a conclusive order. Therefore, no appeal under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule to the Act could be entertained; (b) No appeal has been filed from the order dated 25.9.2012; and (c) In any case the appeals which were filed in the form of grievance dated 13.4.2012 and 7.5.2012,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is father, has gone unattended leading to the TRO passing order dated 25.9.2012. It is only thereafter on 15.5.2014 the Jurisdictional Commissioner disposed of the petitioner's appeals in the form of grievance dated 13.4.2012 and 7.5.2012, in effect taking the plea of fait accompli by virtue of the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the TRO. We find that when the appeal provision is provided under Rule 86 of Second Schedule to the Act and the petitioner has filed such an appeal even according to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, then the Jurisdictional Commissioner should have decided such an appeal at the earliest. This not having been done in the present case, has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner as his grievance against....