KUMAR P AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, a registered partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated June 19, 1987, issued by respondent No. 2, Tax Recovery Officer, CW Ward, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Bombay -400027.

(2.) THE petitioners entered into an agreement for sale dated August 18, 1984, with Bharat Parikh and Co., in respect, of premises No. 617, Parikh Market, Opera House, Bombay -400 004, for a consideration of Rs. 3,65,000. The possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioners on the same day. On the same day, the petitioners and Bharat Parikh and Co.,jointly filed Form No. 37EE (under Rule 48DD) before the competent authority as required under Section 269AB(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961. The permanent account number and the GIR number of Bharat Parikh and Co. were furnished in Part II of the Form. Nothing was heard from the competent authority or the Income -tax Officer on the subject and the petitioners were enjoying the premises peacefully.

(3.) ON the basis of a photo copy of the demand notice, the court is informed that the assessment of Bharat Parikh and Co, for the assessment year 1983 -84 was completed some time in March, 1986. It is pointed out that when the petitioners purchased the premises, there was no demand pending against Bharat Parikh and Co. the assessment itself having been completed in March, 1986. Moreover, information about the purchase of the premises by the petitioners from Bharat Parikh and Co. was furnished to the competent authority in Form No. 37EE and the Income -tax Department did not take any steps for more than two years/The petitioners' case, thus, was that they had purchased the premises for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of any such proceedings.