UMAKANTA RATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an assessee under the Income Tax Act. He had earlier approached this Court in OJC No.2980 of 2002 inter alia praying as follows:-

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties, are that for realization of arrear Income Tax dues from the petitioner for the assessment years 1980-81,1981-82,1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the residential building of the petitioner as stated above was brought to sale by proceedings initiated in consonance with the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and the sale proclamation was issued. The petitioner-assessee thereafter filed two Writ applications before this Court, being OJC Nos.4042 of 1998 and 4043 of 1998, essentially challenging the rejection of his Revision Petitions filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. In the said OJCs this Court was pleased to pass interim orders staying confirmation of sale, but did not stay either the sale or the proceeding leading up to confirmation of the sale. By final order this Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to hear and dispose of the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner on merit after condoning the delay. This Court further observed/directed: "By interim order this Court directed stay of confirmation of sale of the residential building of the petitioner. The said order shall continue till the matter is finally disposed of by the Commissioner. It is needless to mention that the sale will abide by the final order to be passed by the Commissioner as indicated above." In view of the fact that this Court did not direct stay of sale, the sale was held on 25.4.2001, but then its confirmation was kept in abeyance until a decision was taken by the Commissioner in the Revisions which he was directed to consider and decide on merit. The Revisions were disposed of by the Commissioner on 20.11.2001 substantially dismissing the same so far as they related to assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, but granting some relief to the assessee relating to other assessment years, thereby reducing his liability to some extent.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that the Commissioner did not interfere with the sale held on 25.4.2001. Since he held that the assessee continue to be in default, the sale already held stood intact in accordance with the direction of this Court in the aforesaid OJCs 4042 and 4043 of 1998 and the sale was confirmed on 7.2.2002 with issuance of sale certificate to the auction purchaser on 12.2.2002. The petitioner, for reasons best known to him, did not file any application either under Rule 60 or Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act praying to set aside the sale on the ground that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities in publishing or conducting the same and, as stated earlier, approached this Court in OJC No.2980 of 2002. Said OJC No.2980 of 2002 was disposed on 7.5.2002. In para-5 of the judgment this Court held : "According to us, this Court is not the forum where an assesee can straightway seek to challenging a sale held in recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. The rules provide more or less exhaustive procedure for recovery of tax due under the Act and for objecting or for setting aside a sale of property in proceedings for recovery under Section 220(4) of the Act."