TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8B.1) No sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of section 245-T or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX: Provided that the Board may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the aforesaid period for a further period not exceeding three years Provided that where the immovable property is required to be re-sold due to the amount of highest bid being less than the reserve price or under the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, as the case may be, final. (4) Where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time of limitation specified under this rule.". 2.At that time, when the cause of action arose, there was a limitation of three years within which sale of immovable property was to be made from the end of the financial year, in which the order giving raise to demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or other some for recovery of each immovable property had been attached. This provision has been subsequently amended. As per the amended provision, the period of 3 years has been now enha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner is that the property was attached on 17.02.2004 and therefore, the sale of the attached property should have been made within three years from the date specified in Rule 68b of the IInd schedule to the Act, whereas the impugned attachment order is dated 28.03.2014 in ITCP-13. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of T.Subramanian Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Ward-I (3), Tuticorin reported in (2017) 83 taxmann.com 229 (Madras). 7.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that during the interregnum, the petitioner had the golden opportunity to settle the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. However, the petitioner faile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partition deed dated 23.10.2000. This was after the search on 07.07.1999. The tax that was demanded from the petitioner is for the block assessment period ie., from 08.07.1999 to 23.10.2000. 12.Rule 4 of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it clear one of the alternate method for recovering the tax. Apart from attaching the property and bringing the property for sale, the Department can also arrest the defaulters and detain such person in prison or appoint a Receiver for the management of the defaulter's property both movable and immovable property. The tax liability of the petitioner does not get effaced by efflux of time. The Department can attach the property under Rule 48 r/w Rule 60 and bring the same property for sa....