TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 circumstances mentioned in rule 57 or rule 58 or where the sale is set asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 enhanced to 7 years with a further grace period of 3 years for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Board. 3.The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecified 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 failed to take advantage of the same and therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay interest. 8.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents relies on the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 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 sale in terms of the provisions of the IInd schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13.Even if Rule 68(b) contemplates no sale beyond the period of limitation specified therein ie....