P KUMAR 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, C-W 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.) IN March, 1987, respondent No. 2, it appears, attempted to attach the above premises on account of purported from Bharat Parikh and Co. By its letter dated March 30, 1987, the petitioners, inter alia, contended that so far as they are concerned, they had purchased the premises for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of any proceedings against Bharat Parikh and Co. , and that the so-called attachment was bad and illegal. By his impugned letter/notice dated June 19, 1987, respondent No. 2, however, informed the petitioners that he was holding as recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 6,02,453 in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 against Bharat Parikh and Co. , and that in view of section 281 (1) of the income-tax Act, 1961, he was entitled to attach the premises, bharat Parikh and Co. , it was stated, had filed the return for the assessment year 1983-84 on February 27, 1984, though the date of completion of the assessment was not indicated.