2019 (5) TMI 889

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2) Heard Mr.Narendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.M.Kiranmai, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Mr.N.Harinath, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 6 to 10. 3) It appears that the 5th respondent-company availed credit facilities from the petitioner-bank and other banks which formed a consortium, to the extent of about 720 crores during the period from 2006 to 2014. The loan accounts became non-performing assets in August, 2015 and hence measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Securitization Act") were in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016. 8) The orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, were in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. Therefore, the Tax Recovery Officer pitches his claim for priority on the basis of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In other words the claim of the Tax Recovery Officer is that the very creation of the mortgage, during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, is null and void in view of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9) But the very same issue as to whether a mortgage created during the pendency of the assessment proceedings would automatically become null and void under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court to which one of us ....