R RAJBABU Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final orders.

(2.) THE petitioner, Rajbabu, questioned the order of attachment of immovable property bearing Door No. 39, General Patters Road, Chennai 2, which was issued as if the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,84,000 payable by him in Certificate No. TRC No. 557 to 564/02-03, dt. 31st Dec., 2002. When the petitioner has approached the authorities saying that he is not liable to pay the sum as demanded in the impugned notice, the respondent-authority came out with a letter dt. 27th Feb., 2003 that the tax demanded in a sum of Rs. 13,24,000 from the petitioner is only protective in nature and the Department would not enforce the same until the matter is finalised by the AO. However, the letter proceeds that request of the petitioner for lifting of attachment on immovable properties jointly owned by him and his sister would be considered after getting legal advice as it is the case of the Department that the source of investment has been made by the petitioner's sister.

(3.) MR . J. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Department, contended that the attachment cannot be disputed, which is in accordance with the provisions of s. 222 and 223 of the IT Act. The order of attachment may be directed to be continued. With regard to the collection of the rent by the respondent, this Court may pass orders.