AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the immovable property stood attached by virtue of an order of attachment dated February 23, 1976 as well as another order of attachment dated March 23, 2007. Although the order of attachment dated March 23, 2007 was subsequently lifted the order of attachment dated March 23, 1976 remained on the date of the confirmation of sale on March 24, 2007. Therefore, the State Bank of India could not have put up the property for sale. Assuming that the sale conducted by the State Bank of India is valid, then the entire sale proceeds should be made over to the Income Tax Department inasmuch as the property stood attached by vir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her, establishes that, the State Bank of India was well aware of the order of attachment prior to putting up the property for sale. Learned Advocate appearing for the State Bank of India submits that, the Income Tax Authorities had dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property. He refers to an application made under Section 230A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and submits that, the permission was granted therein. He also refers to the grant of permission and submits that, such permission states that, there are no dues on account of income tax. Therefore, on the date of grant of such permission, there cannot be any valid order of attachment. The permission was granted in 1983. The order of attachment dated February 23, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies upon AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3413(1) [United Bank of India-Versus- Satyawati Tondon & Ors.]. The provisions of the Act of 2002 has overriding the effect and in support of such contentions the learned Advocate for the Bank relies upon 2008 (110) Bombay Law Report 456 (Krishna Lifestyle Technologies-Versus-Union of India). Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the purchaser submits that, the purchaser is one of the brothers of the borrower. He submits that, the order of attachment dated February 23, 1976 has not been placed before the Court. He refers to the title chain in respect of the property and submits that, Jaiswal has acquired title to the property subsequently. The order of attachment stood withdrawn much prior to such transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, 2002. Moreover, the initial deposit was made beyond the period prescribed under the Rule of 2002. The sale was confirmed three years after the sale notice. It was confirmed on April 10, 2013. He relies upon (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 610 (Mathew Varghese- Versus-M. Amritha Kumar & Others). He submits that, the notice contemplated under Rules 8(6) and Rule 9(1) have not been issued to the borrower, that is, the respondent no.3. Thirty days clear notice to the borrower had not been issued. Therefore, the property could not have been validly sold. He points out the fact that, the property put up for sale is 1/9th undivided share of immovable property. The bank could not have taken possession of such 1/9th share inasmuch as the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before any of the forai before which the parties are litigating. As noted above, there are at least two writ petitions pending which does not enclose the order of attachment dated February 23, 1976. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing noticing such fact, a request was made to the department to produce such order of attachment. The department had filed a supplementary affidavit. However, the order of attachment dated February 23, 1976 has not seen the light of the day. The order of attachment dated February 23, 1976 is however referred to in the diverse correspondence issued on behalf of the Income Tax Authorities and as late as in 2016. It is not understood how an Income Tax Authority is in a position to write the letter on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity of the same reasoning, the Authorities cited on behalf of the bank relating to the sale namely, Satyawati Tondon (supra), M/s. Ashok Saw Mill (supra) and Krishna Lifestyle Technologies (supra) need not be dealt with herein. The parties are at liberty to avail of their respective remedies, in accordance with law, in such proceedings. The observations made here will not prejudice any of the parties before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. GBM Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (supra) deal with instances where the Tax Recovery Officer has acted. In the present case, as noted above, the order of attachment on the basis of which the action is founded is not made available to the Court. Therefore it would be prude....