Skip to content


Sangam Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Writ No. 8033 of 1974
Judge
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)282; [1979]116ITR316(All)
ActsIncome Tax Rules, 1962 - Rules 38 and 52
AppellantSangam Lal
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Appellant AdvocateD.C. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....1974, as the date for the sale of the house, on 15th january, 1974. on 13th february, 1974, he filed an objection to the sale of the property before the tro. he filed another objection on 30th june, 1974, objecting to the sale of the house. the grievance of the petitioner is that without disposing of these objections the tro is proceeding to sell the house. this is evident from a second notice dated 8th november, 1974, stating that the house will be sold on 20th december, 1974. 3. the petitioner's objection is that the house in dispute did not belong to the assessee-firm, but to the huf and it could not be sold for the income-tax dues against the assessee-firm. 4. the respondents have stated that the two letters stated to be objections, were not in proper form and hence no action.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J.

1. The petitioner prays that the notices issued under rr. 38 and 52 of the I.T. Rules, for the sale of a house having beenserved on him in the course of the proceeding pending for recovery of income-tax dues, may be quashed.

2. The petitioner's case is that he received a notice fixing 21st February, 1974, as the date for the sale of the house, on 15th January, 1974. On 13th February, 1974, he filed an objection to the sale of the property before the TRO. He filed another objection on 30th June, 1974, objecting to the sale of the house. The grievance of the petitioner is that without disposing of these objections the TRO is proceeding to sell the house. This is evident from a second notice dated 8th November, 1974, stating that the house will be sold on 20th December, 1974.

3. The petitioner's objection is that the house in dispute did not belong to the assessee-firm, but to the HUF and it could not be sold for the income-tax dues against the assessee-firm.

4. The respondents have stated that the two letters stated to be objections, were not in proper form and hence no action could be taken thereon. We have seen the objections of the petitioner. The only lacking point is that they do not mention the section or the provision under which they were made. In fact, these letters were objections of the petitioner for not selling the house in dispute and the TRO should have disposed of them on merits before proceeding actually to sell the house.

5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The TRO, Allahabad, is directed to proceed to decide the objections filed by the petitioner and not to sell the house in question, without first deciding the objections. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //