2019 (6) TMI 1720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 and 2. To be noted, respondents 3 to 7 are lessees under writ petitioners and they are only formal parties as far as the instant writ petition is concerned. 2. Therefore, with consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and the aforesaid Revenue Counsel, main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. This matter turns on very narrow compass. 4. The case of the writ petitioner in a nutshell is that the second respondent viz., Jurisdictional Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department has issued six different notices. These notices have been sent to the aforementioned tenants/lessees of the writ petitioners. 5. The details of the six notices are as follows: S.No Date Reference No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ropriated by the Department towards alleged dues of writ petitioner's father's brother Late Mr.P.N.Subramaniam. 10. Responding to this, learned Revenue Counsel submitted that under Section 226(3) of IT Act, it is open to the IT Department to proceed against the petitioners. It was submitted that IT Department will proceed against the other legal heirs also (who are available). 11. In other words, other legal heirs being available and having means, cannot be put against the IT Department to assail the impugned notices, is learned Revenue counsel's say. 12. Learned Revenue Counsel also pointed out that it is not as if the writ petitioners are not beneficiaries qua the aforesaid testament left by late Mr.P.N.Subramaniam. T....