B ASRIRAMIAH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER KOLAR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sale proceedings impugned in these petitions will have to be held invalid as the amount for the recovery of which the properties are purported to have been sold (under the sale proclamation issued) is much more than the amount due from the assessee. The certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, show that the amount due from the assessee is Rs. 24,933.16. It is now admitted on behalf of the revenue that the amount due from the assessee is only Rs. 20,997.33. According to the assessee, it was only Rs. 19,000 and odd. In any case the amount shown in the certificates in more than what was due from the assessee. It cannot be said that the mistake in question was due to any clerical error. That being so, the proclamation issued should be held to be invalid which means that the sale held in pursuance of that proclamation is also invalid.

(2.) A similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of the Madras High Court in Santosha Nadar v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin. This is what the Officiating Chief Justice observed in that connectio :

(3.) In K. Ramakrishnappa v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chikmagalur, we have differed from the view taken by the Madras High Court in Santosha Nadar's case, in so far as to the nature of the writ to be issued. We have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances mentioned therein, no writ of prohibition could be issued. But that does not mean that we cannot issue an order in the nature of prohibition restraining the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar) from confirming the sale held as, in our opinion, the sale proceedings are vitiated for the reasons mentioned above.