ANTONITTO Vs. CHIEF CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of tax arrears of M/s Ocean Fisheries and late K.J. Columbus for the assessment years 1974 -75 to 1977 -78, 1980 -81 and 1982 -83 with interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri K.J. Columbus and late Smt. Kunju Mary Columbus. Exhibit P1 is the proclamation for sale of the property to be held on 6 -2 -2009.

(2.) I heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. P. Balakrishnan and Mr. Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the department.

(3.) PER contra, learned standing counsel would point out that the petitioners should not be given any indulgence by this Court. The petitioners were given sufficient indulgence by the authority, which they did not avail of, he contends. It is submitted that by Exts. P2 and P3 orders the petitioners were given 60 per cent waiver, but the petitioners did not comply with the terms of Exts. P2 and P3. It is also submitted that actually petitioners 2 and 3 have no locus standi as they claim under gift deeds, which were executed by the late wife of late Mr. Columbus, to whom the property was gifted by late Mr. Columbus himself. It is pointed out that the property is the joint property and the amounts are due from the persons mentioned in Ext. PI. It is submitted that if amounts are due from persons and there is liability under law, it can be enforced from the joint right in the property.