TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). The whole controversy revolves around land in final plot No. 87 of Dhule town which admeasures about six acres and out of which, two acres have already been acquired by respondent No. 5 some time in the year 1974. In respect of the compensation amount for the acquired land, first appeal was decided by this court and the order of this court came to be challenged before the apex court by filing a special leave petition. The said special leave petition came to be decided by the apex court vide its order dated April 12, 1996. The said special leave petition was filed by the present petitioner contending to be the sole owner of the entire land in final plot No. 87 includin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partial in respect of the Hindu undivided family property. She also stated that the present members of the said Hindu undivided family are: (1) Mr. Manohar, s/o. Bhikchand Agrawal, (2) Mr. Prakash, s/o. Bhikchand Agrawal and (3) Smt. Gyarasidevi, w/o. Bhikchand Agrawal. She further requested that she being an old lady of 80 years, the Department should not resort to any coercive action against her. A similar representation was submitted by the petitioner on May 23, 2000, to respondent No. 4. On May 8, 2000, she also approached respondent No. 5 and denied the claim of the Income-tax Department. Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2000, came to be heard by the apex court on July 10, 2000. The present petitioner was the petitioner before the apex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r personal property and the land acquired had nothing to do with the firm against which the attachment order came to be passed by respondent No. 4. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed affidavit in reply and have opposed the petition. It is contended that the provisions of section 226(3) read with section 171 of the Act authorise the recovery of income-tax dues from the amounts payable to any of the members of the defaulting Jivanram Bijeram Agrawal (Hindu undivided family) so long as they have the information with them that the property in final plot No. 87 was not the personal property of the petitioner alone. The Revenue authorities have relied upon some documents submitted by one of the members of the Hindu undivided family and they have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the provisions of section 226(3) read with section 171(6) of the Act were not attracted. We must also note that Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 1999, has been filed by the petitioner against the members of Jivanram Bijeram Agrawal (Hindu undivided family), viz., Prakash as well as Manohar. The suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the remaining land in final Plot No. 87 and it is pending before the learned Civil judge, Senior Division at Dhule. It is contended therein that the entire land property in final Plot No. 87 is exclusive property of the petitioner and the defendants have no share and right to disturb her possession in respect of the said property. The only question for our consideration, in such circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the decree. It is seen from the documents that the present final Plot No. 87 was Original Survey Nos. 366A and 367/A/B/C. Shri V. D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also invited our attention to Schedules "O", "P" and "Q' to the said decree in support of his contentions that the personal credits as available to the three members of the Hindu undivided family were the considerations for the respective properties being shown in their respective names. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to para. 10 of the agreement dated January 19, 1963, which reads thus: "(10) The said Bhikchand has undertaken all liability of the Khatas of Manohar, Prakash and liability of the Khatas of Manohar, Prakash and hence, the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided family) and, admittedly, the said firm has to pay income-tax dues to the Revenue. This issue, which we are required to address, including the impugned notice, was not before the apex court even in the contempt petition and, therefore, the offer passed by the apex court, therein does not amount to a finding regarding the petitioner's exclusive right in respect of the property acquired. We have gone through section 226(3) read with section 171(6) of the Act and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected summarily. Interim order stands vacated. At this stage, Mr. V. D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeals filed by Jivanram Bijer....