Bombay High Court
Sapana Charudatt Randive vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 21 February, 2019
Author: M.S.Sanklecha
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha
Priya Soparkar 1 5 wp 423-19-o
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.423 OF 2019
Sapana C. Ranadive ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
17(3) and ors. ... Respondents
---
Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/by Ms.Alisha Pinto for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.C.Chhotaray for the Respondents.
---
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2019.
P.C.:-
1. Petitioner is grand-daughter of late Shri Sudhir Hendre and his wife Smt. Manik Hendre. Grand-father and grand-mother expired on 3rd March, 2003 and 5th July, 2008 respectively.
According to the petitioner, the grand-parents had died intestate. Petitioner is daughter of Jagdish Hendre, the son of the late couple who had pre-deceased his parents. He died on 23 rd November, 1977, also according to the petitioner, intestate. Petitioner is one of the two daughters of Jagdish Hendre. ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 18:50:02 :::
Priya Soparkar 2 5 wp 423-19-o Petitioner's grand-parents are the assessees in default. The Income Tax Department has raised sizable tax, interest and penalty dues against them concerning several assessment years of the past. Since the dues could not be recovered, the Income Tax Department first attached as many as six immovable properties of the petitioner's grand-parents and presently, the department is in the process of putting such properties to the auction sale. Auction notices have been issued. The auction is scheduled on 22nd February, 2019.
2. The petitioner's main ground of challenge to the auction proceedings are :-
(i) That the proposed sale is hit by the limitation period prescribed under Rule 68B of the second schedule of the Income Tax Act.
(ii) There is no clarity about the total dues of the department from the petitioner's grand-parents.
3. On the other hand, the case of the department is that the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 68B would apply ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 18:50:02 ::: Priya Soparkar 3 5 wp 423-19-o from the date the department computed and ordered payment of interest on the assessees' tax and penalty dues. Thus seen, the action is within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 68B.
4. Since very short time was available, at the outset we had decided to fix this petition for further or final hearing at a later date. In the meantime, we had heard learned Advocates for the parties on the question of interim relief. Having thus heard the Advocates, it would prima facie appear that the auction proceedings are being conducted after several years of the department ordering assessment of the properties. Dues of the deceased assessees' had arisen in relation upto the assessment year 1999-2000. A serious question of the action of the department being within the period of limitation under Rule 68B would arise. Prima facie we do not think that the departmental authorities are correct in contending that such period would commence only after the computation of interest and order asking the assessees to pay such interest is passed. In that view of the matter, we would not permit the conduct of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 18:50:02 ::: Priya Soparkar 4 5 wp 423-19-o auction.
5. In the result, the petition my be adjourned for further hearing on 7th March, 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, the auction of the properties in question is stayed. Petitioner shall ensure service of this order on private respondents.
6. Parties to act on the copy of the order to be certified by the Associate of this Court.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)
....
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 18:50:02 :::