TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sold in auction by the 3rd respondent and purchased by one N.H.Sherief, who is now deceased and was the father of respondents 6 to 8 and husband of 5th respondent. The petitioner is challenging the sale in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 8. 2. The specific ground raised is that, the auction purchaser failed to remit the balance consideration of sale despite there being no stay order for a long period and, hence, under Rule 58 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity "IT Act"] the auction purchaser has to be deemed to be a defaulter and the 25% amounts paid on the date of auction has to be forfeited; thus dis-entitling the purchaser from obtaining the conveyance of the said property at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding in the name of the 4th respondent with regard to the dues under the IT Act. The petitioner and his father purchased 60 and 90 cents respectively out of the total extent of 2.05 acres, from the 4th respondent. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner is produced at Exhibit P1 dated 10/10/1985 and the title deeds executed in favour of the petitioner's father were on 10/09/1985 and 30/09/1985. The properties purchased by the father stood conveyed to the petitioner by Exhibit P2 dated 13/06/1991. 5. The petitioner, after the auction purchase, had filed a claim petition, which was rejected and in the claim petition admittedly the contention was that the 4th respondent had sold the property to the petitioner and his father, so as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24/02/1998 [Exhibit P12 judgment]. The additional 6th defendant arrayed in the suit was the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 8. The purchaser cannot feign ignorance of the dismissal of the suit. The petitioner is then said to have filed an appeal with 44 days delay before this Court, numbered as A.S.No.468 of 1998. Notice was ordered in the delay condonation application and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 8 was also issued with notice. There was no order of stay and the delay itself was condoned on 07/02/2000, by which time considerable time had elapsed and the additional 6th defendant in the suit, who is the purchaser of the property, did not care to remit the balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such circumstance, equity demands that the petitioner be given a chance to settle the entire dues under the IT Act created by the 4th respondent, which also occasioned the charge being created on the property purchased by the petitioner. 10. The respondents 1 to 3 shall, hence, intimate the amounts due as on 10th November, 2016 with any interest accruing to the dues and the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the said amounts within the said period; i.e., on or before 10.11.2016. The intimation of computation of amounts with interest shall be served on the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner makes the payment prior to 10/11/2016, deduction in the interest shall a....