TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment for the period 1986-87 to 1995-96. The tax liability was determined at Rs. 4,00,36,404/-. The statutory appeal ultimately reduced the amount to Rs. 1,03,89,878/-. The impugned action was to recover the said amount by attachment and sale of the property, owned by the petitioner as per Exhibit P1 and P2 deeds; conveyed to her for consideration. Whether the conveyance was a sham transaction, insofar as there being no adequate consideration is the crux of the matter in addition to the procedural defects alleged as also the total lack of jurisdiction asserted by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that the petitioner herself was running a business, namely a hotel, from which sufficient income was generated to purchase the property. It is also contended that the purchase made by Exhibit P1 was for valid consideration, which valued the property as similarly valued in Exhibits P3 and P4 transactions made of identically situated lands. An alternative contention is also taken taken up that the subject property, situated adjacent to the property in which the hotel was run by the petitioner did not have a pathway and had only access through the adjoining property; which redu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the assessee's movable or immovable property shall include any property which has been transferred, directly or indirectly on or after the 1st day of June, 1973, by the assessee to his spouse or minor child or son's wife or son's minor child, otherwise than for adequate consideration, and which is held by, or stands in the name of, any of the persons aforesaid; and so far as the movable or immovable property so transferred to his minor child or his son's minor child is concerned, it shall, even after the date of attainment of majority by such minor child or son's minor child, as the case may be, continue to be included in the assessee's movable or immovable property for recovering any arrears due from the assessee in respect of any period prior to such date. (2) The Tax Recovery Officer may take action under sub-section (1), notwithstanding that proceedings for recovery of the arrears by any other mode have been taken". The recovery initiated on the strength of the Explanation was against a property conveyed by the petitioners husband, an assessee in default, to the petitioner his wife. 6. There is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the attachment of the immovable property, being the residential house of the assessee, was made on 23.10.1972. The transfer asserted by the assessee was by virtue of a trust deed executed in favour of his wife and daughter on 21.02.1969 and a conveyance of the property to his wife and daughter by a registered deed on 27.02.1969. 9. Section 281, as it stood then, reads as under: "281. Where, during the pendency of any proceeding under this Act, any assesse creates a charge on or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever, of any of his assets in favour of any other person with the intention to defraud the Revenue, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in repsect of any tax or any other sum payable by the assesse as a result of the completion of the said proceeding: Provided that such charge or transfer shall not be void if made for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the proceeding under this Act". Interpreting Section 281, which declares as void any transfer by the assessee during the pendency of proceedings under the Act with the intention to defraud the Revenue and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; from which no further proceedings were taken either by the Revenue or the assessee. There is nothing to evidence this date, but the submission made across the Bar and not even an avernment. For argument sake, assuming it to be correct, going by Rule 68B, the limitation commences from 31.03.2009 and expires only three years from that date, i.e., on 31.03.2012. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B also provides for exclusion of any period commencing from the date of the presentation of any appeal against the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Second Schedule and ending on the day the appeal is decided. The order impugned herein was passed on 09.03.2010 and no appeal was filed. The present writ petition was initiated on 18.03.2010, well within the limitation period. In such circumstances, as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B, the period shall stand extended to 180 days since the proceeding initiated here, under Article 226, challenged the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer. 13. It is also pertinent that Explanation to Section 222(1) specifically speaks of proceeding against the transferred movable or immovable assets of the assessee ....