GOPALA NAIDU A Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has presented these petitions praying for a declaration to the effect that the Income-tax Department must be deemed to have collected the entire rent due to the petitioner in respect of premises belonging to him from his tenant in view of the prohibitory order issued by the Department and also praying for quashing the order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer attaching two immovable properties belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. THE father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. As on May 21, 1978, it appears, he was due to the Department in a sum of Rs. 17,509. A non-residential building belonging to the petitioner situate at Subhedar Chatram Road, Bangalore, had been let out to one Hayavadana Rao on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,650. A prohibitory order was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer on May 15, 1978 (vide annexure A), under rule 26(1) (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. By that order, the said Hayavadana Rao was prohibited from paying monthly rent to the petitioner and he was also requested to remit the rent of Rs. 1,650 per month payable to the petitioner, to the Department instead, until further orders.

(3.) SRI K. SRInivasan, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, submitted that SRI Hayavadana Rao did not remit any rent payable by him either to the petitioner or to the Department and, therefore, there could be no declaration that the Department had collected the rents. Even, under the impugned orders, he submitted that the tenant was only requested to remit the rent and there was no legal compulsion on the part of the tenant to remit the rent to the Department. He further submitted that it might be that the order was outside the purview of rule 26 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it was for the petitioner to have taken prompt action either seeking for vacating the said order or questioning the legality of the order itself in so far as it prohibited the tenant from paying future rent to the petitioner.