MOHAMMED NIYAS Vs. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER; INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE INCOME TAX OFFICE; INCOME TAX RECOVERY OFFICER; AMARAVATHY SOMA SUNDARAM; HIND SHERIF; ZAVAD SHERIEF; ANFAZ SHERIEF; FOUSIA ARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is title holder of 1 acre and 50 cents of property, which originally belonged to the 4 th respondent, who is now no more and whose legal heirs are impleaded as additional respondents 9 and 10. The property along with some appurtenant land was sold in auction by the 3 rd respondent and purchased by one N.H.Sherief, who is now deceased and was the father of respondents 6 to 8 and husband of 5 th respondent. The petitioner is challenging the sale in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 8.

(2.) The specific ground raised is that, the auction purchaser failed to remit the balance consideration of sale despite there being no stay order for a long period and, hence, under Rule 58 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity "IT Act"] the auction purchaser has to be deemed to be a defaulter and the 25% amounts paid on the date of auction has to be forfeited; thus dis-entitling the purchaser from obtaining the conveyance of the said property at this distance of time. It is also prayed that, on such action taken by the Income Tax authorities; deeming the auction purchaser to be a defaulter, the prescription under Rule 58 is to proceed for a fresh auction for sale, which need not be resorted to, since the petitioner now undertakes to pay the entire dues to the Income Tax Department with interest.

(3.) Respondents 5 to 8 contend that on the date of auction itself the petitioner obtained an injunction against the confirmation, which prevented the deposit of the balance consideration for a long time when the suit was pending before the trial Court. Subsequently, there was also an appeal filed and then a review. By the time the dismissal of the review was effected, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 8, the original auction purchaser, died on 01/07/2002. It was in such circumstance that the balance consideration could not be paid and as of now the respondents 5 to 8 are willing to pay the balance consideration to effect conveyance of the property, as bid in auction and affirmed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest.