MALTI DEVI Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated September 22, 2006, passed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Allahabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that M/s. Raja Ram Kishan Chand (HUF) was a defaulter of income -tax dues. In recovery of the said dues, the Department attached property No. 110, Ward -7, Mohalla Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur. The attachment was effected on November 7, 1973. The petitioner who happens to be the daughter -in -law of Raja Ram allegedly purchased the property No. 107, Ward -7, Mohalla Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on September 22, 1980. She came out with the case that the said property No. 107 was not the subject -matter of attachment order dated November 7, 1973. The case of the Department, on the other hand, was that the property No. 107 was also the subject -matter of the attachment order dated November 7, 1973, and as such, any subsequent sale to her is void and illegal. It further appears that an objection was filed by the present petitioner, namely, Smt. Malti Devi before the Tax Recovery Officer on the ground that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question prior to the attachment order and also that the property in question belongs to Shri Raja Ram in his individual capacity and the said property cannot be sold for the recovery of dues outstanding against M/s. Raja Ram Kishan Chand (HUF). Shri Raja Ram also filed certain objections claiming the property in question as his individual property. The Tax Recovery Officer rejected the objection. In view of Rule 11(6) of the rules as provided in the Second Schedule to the Income -tax Act, Smt. Malti Devi, the petitioner herein, instituted Suit No. 157 of 1983 challenging the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer holding that the property in question was attached by the order dated November 7, 1973. Shri Suyash Agrawal, advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further accepts the position that the said suit was dismissed and the dismissal of the suit has been upheld up to thsi Court. Thereafter, it appears that an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income -tax, Allahabad. The said appeal was earlier dismissed in default and review application was filed, which also was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 1033 of 2002. This Court by the judgment dated May 25, 2006, directed the Commissioner of Income -tax to decide the objection filed by the petitioner on the merits. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the matter was again placed before the Commissioner of Income -tax who after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal.

(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.