TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. The son of the first respondent had availed credit facility from the Canara Bank. The first respondent was the guarantor in that loan transaction and she had mortgaged her property to the bank. On default made in repayment of the loan amount, the bank instituted O.A.No.311/2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for realisation of the loan amount. The Tribunal passed an ex parte order against the first respondent and her son for realisation of the loan amount with interest. The first respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, but it was dismissed by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/2011 before this Court for setting aside the sale and for re-conveyance of the property. 4. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner prayed for urging the plea of her son also in the writ petition, on the ground that he was absconding and the prayer in that regard was accepted by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C) No.20956/2008 and O.P (DRT) No.1546/2011 as per the impugned judgment in W.A.No.1861/2015, by issuing direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the Appeal No.13/2012, within a period of four months from the date of the judgment. The auction purchasers, who were subsequently impleaded in the writ petition as additional respondents 4 and 5, have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....much available. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner could not have sought any relief against the sale of the property owned by her son. 9. At this juncture, a recapitulation of the events that occurred after the filing of the writ petition is necessary. The proclamation for sale of the property of the son of the writ petitioner was made on 06.12.2010. The auction sale was conducted on 19.01.2011. The writ petitioner filed an application as I.A.No.721/2011 for setting aside the sale, before the Recovery Officer. The said application was dismissed on 22.03.2011. The sale was confirmed on 29.03.2011. The writ petitioner filed Appeal No.13/2012 on 06.09.2012 before the Tribunal for setting aside the confirmation of sale. She had also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at length, we are of the considered view that the Recovery Officer and the Tribunal have to dispose of the review and the appeal, untrammeled by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment. It would be proper for the parties to raise all their contentions, including the question regarding maintainability of the appeal and the review petition, before the authorities concerned. 13. Learned counsel for the additional respondents in the appeals has requested that a direction may be given to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal pending before it only after the disposal of the review petition which was filed by the writ petitioner before the Recovery Officer. 14. Consequently, the impugned judgment in W.P.(C) No.20956/2008 is mod....