TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (10) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 on June 28, 1965. The petitioner, who was liable under the decree to the respondent No. 5, who was the original defaulter, was deemed to be a defaulter within the meaning of section 226(3)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, a recovery certificate was issued by Income-tax Officer and he sent it to the Tax Recovery Officer, who was a Tahsildar in the present case. After attachment of the property of the petitioner and the sale-proclamation, etc., sale was held on August 31, 1966, which brought Rs. 46,500 as sale proceeds. The petitioner then applied for setting aside the said sale under rule 61 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act. This application was not accompanied by any deposit of the arrears for which the petitioner was held liable. By an order dated October 4, 1966, the Tax Recovery Officer (Tahsildar) rejected the application and confirmed the sale in favour of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner had alleged some irregularities in the publishing and the conduct of the sale. All these contentions were negatived by the Tax Recovery officer and further the Tax Recovery Officer also held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of rule 61 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to which appeals ordinarily lie against the orders of a Collector under the law relating to land revenue of the State concerned." A Tax Recovery Officer under section 2(44) means : " (i) a Collector or an Additional Collector ; (ii) any such officer empowered to effect recovery of arrears of land revenue or other public demand under any law relating to land revenue or other public demand for the time being in force in the State as may be authorised by the State Government, by general or special notification in the official gazette, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer ; (iii) any gazetted officer of the Central or a State Government who may be authorised by the Central Government, by general or special notification in the official gazette, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer." Under the law relating to land revenue in the State and with respect to the period in question, an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of a Collector to the Commissioner. Therefore, under clause (a), the appellate authority would be the Commissioner. However, an appeal can lie to the Commissioner only where the Tax Recovery Officer is a Collector or an Additiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the law relating to land revenue, an appeal from the order of the Tahsildar would lie to the Sub-Divisional Officer. As in section 41 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, under clause (b) of rule 86(1) an appeal against the instant order of the Tax Recovery Officer would lie to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Such appeal was filed by the petitioner and has been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on merits. It is, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that a second appeal lies further against the order in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer and a further revision would lie against the order of the second appellate court to the Commissioner, by virtue of the provisions of section 41 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. It is no doubt true that in cases arising under the laws relating to land revenue a second appeal is provided to the Collector against an order passed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide, sub-section (2) of section 41 and further section 46 gives a right to the Commissioner to entertain a revision against the order of the Collector. The right of appeal, however, has to be found under the Income-tax Act or the rules made thereunder as the right of appeal or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m any further right and he must be restricted only to the right which has been given to him under the statute. In its wisdom the legislature has provided for only one right of appeal whether the matter falls under clause (a) or clause (b). We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in cases falling under clause (b) of rule 86(1), there is a further right of appeal and revision to the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively. In our view, the Deputy Collector with revenue appellate powers as well as the Commissioner took the correct view that no further appeal was maintainable against the appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and no revision was maintainable against the order of the Deputy Collector with revenue appellate powers. Another contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 by Mr. Manohar as was raised before the Tax Recovery Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer that the petitioner was not entitled to be heard in view of the petitioner's omission to deposit the amount recoverable from him in execution of the certificate. The second proviso to rule 61 requires that an application made by a defau....