TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ti Rai, 75% land ad-measuring 2 Kanals within the premises of Gurdeep Cycle (Singla and Co.) Single Cycle Road, Dahandari Kalan, Ludhiana owned by the petitioner was put to public auction on 05.02.2007. The highest bidder M/s Ashoka Inds. Fasterers was declared as purchaser for a sum of Rs. 12.10 lacs. The petitioner raised objections stating that the auction held on 05.02.2007 was not a public auction and deserved to be set aside. It was alleged that the land had been sold at throw away price. No tent or banner was affixed and the auctioneer had connived with the purchaser. He also claimed to have a better buyer, who was ready to purchase the land for Rs. 21 lacs. The matter was considered by the Recovery Officer DRT-II Chandigarh and on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 18 lacs was made after a lapse of more than one year without full amount of the offered purchase money. Accordingly, vide order dated 1.4.2008 the public auction was considered satisfactory and confirmed. Against this order of the Recovery Officer, the petitioner, the guarantor and the intending purchaser filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Dues to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered all the objections of the petitioner and others and dismissed the appeal vide order 23.10.2013. With regard to the objections of the petitioner regarding the change of date of auction from 28.01.2007 to 05.02.2007, it was observed that the same had been done to rectify an error as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner stated that he had a better buyer, who was ready to pay Rs. 6 lacs upfront and had offered to deposit a total amount of Rs. 24 lacs within a period of one month. The Appellate Tribunal did not accept this request. Instead, to ascertain the bona fide of the intending buyer, he was directed to deposit Rs. 24 lacs within 10 days. The intending buyer this time, was a person named Anand Goyal. He deposited an amount of Rs. 24 lacs with the Registrar of the Tribunal. An option was given to auction purchaser to match the bid, which he did. The petitioner then stated that he would pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. This amount was also matched by the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner offered to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 50,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haser. However, despite holding the appeal to be not maintainable, the learned Appellate Tribunal considered the issue on merits as well. It was held that the intending purchaser was a newly introduced person, who had no right to bid for the property. It was held that the petitioner having earlier stated that he had not been able to arrange a better buyer, could not be permitted to introduce one person after another as intending buyer. If any, person had any interest to buy the property, he should have participated in the auction. It was further held that the DRT was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as he had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 60 of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961 and that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t application before the Recovery Officer offered to produce a better buyer for Rs. 21 lacs. Vide notice dated 11.03.2008, he was given seven days' time to deposit the amount of Rs. 21 lacs to show his bonafide which he failed to do. Instead after the expiry of the seven days on 18.03.2008, he again filed another application against the auction with a permission to bring a buyer for Rs. 18 lacs. Demand draft of Rs. 4.50 lacs i.e. 25% of the intended amount were enclosed with the application. Considering that the petitioner had defaulted in making good the offer of deposit Rs. 21 lacs within one week and he had moved the second application after more a year of the auction, the Recovery Officer rightly found that the intention of the peti....