2024 (2) TMI 1595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttachment entry of the third respondent over the immovable property of the petitioner admeasuring 67 cents, comprised in Survey No. 238/4 (65 cents) and 238/5C (02 cents) situated at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and consequentially direct the second respondent to make appropriate entries stating that the said attachment has been lifted and allow the petitioner to enjoy the property without any hindrance. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property on 02.11.2011 and at that time, there was no encumbrance. Subsequently, attachment was made on 31.03.2013 and without any due process of law, entry was made and also twice, the property was attached, wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s by the Income Tax Department, and therefore, the alienation made by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner itself is void and it will not bind the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, there are also no proceedings and they were already completed. The assessment details of the fourth respondent, viz., M/s. Sally Thermoplastics India Limited for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010-11 are given below: A.Y. Notice issued under Section Date of issue of notice Date of completion of assessment Tax Interest Total Remark s 2009-10 143(3) 29.09.2011 30.12.2011 4,35,075/- 1,95,985/- 6,31,060/- Normal assessment 2010-11 143(2) 29.09.2011 31.03.2013 1,12,221,2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce the petitioner's sale deed itself is void, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 made his submissions by relying upon the counter affidavit and also prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is the original owner of the property and there was a complaint against the fourth respondent before the CBI and they have also conducted raid on 16.12.2010 and they have also requested the investigation wing of the third respondent to investigate regarding the evasion of the Income Tax. They have also issued su....