Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, sale of any immovable property attached for recovery of tax dues cannot be effected after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand of any tax, interest, fine or penalty, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached. It is submitted that even if the above period of three years is to be treated as four years as per public notice dated 01/03/1996 and the extended period of one year available in case resale as provided under the proviso to rule 68B(1) is also taken into account, the sale is required to be completed within 5 years from the end of the financial year in which the demand of tax, interest, fine or penalty has attained finality. In the present case, the demand for A.Y.86-87 and 87-88 attained finality on 15/6/1994 as per the order of I.T.A.T. and, therefore, the period of five years would expire on 31st March, 2000 [i.e. from 1/4/1995 to 31st March, 2000]. Since the immovable property is sold on 30/3/2004 i.e. beyond the period of five years from the end of the financial year in which the demand attained finality, the said sale confirmed on 30/3/2004 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, thus, makes it obligatory on the part of the revenue to complete sale of the immovable property attached by it for recovery of any tax, interest, fine / penalty or any other sum within the period prescribed therein. In other words, the sale of the immovable property attached for recovery of any tax, interest, etc. cannot be held after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 68B and the if the sale is not completed within the prescribed period therein, the attachment if any levied on the property is liable to be vacated.

10. Rule 68B was introduced in the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 1992 specifically with a view to prescribe time limit of three years for sale of attached immovable properties. Proviso to Rule 68B (1) provides for extension of one more year in certain cases where the sale falls through. In other words, if the sale held within the period of three years could not be completed for some reason set out therein, then, under the proviso to rule 68B(1) extension of one more year is available for effecting the sale. Rule 68B(2) provides for exclusion of the period during which the demand is stayed by any Court.

14. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether, the period during which the Misc. Application filed by the petitioner was pending before the I.T.A.T. is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation prescribed under rule 68B ?

15. Admittedly, the Misc. Application filed by the petitioner was not to seek stay of the levy of tax, interest / penalty confirmed by the order of the I.T.A.T. dated 15/6/1994. The said Misc. Application was filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the auction of his flat to be held as per the proclamation of sale inter alia on the ground that the attached flat was the only flat owned by the petitioner and if the petitioner is evicted from the said flat, then, the petitioner and his family members will be rendered homeless. Admittedly, during the pendency of the Misc. Application, neither the recovery of tax, interest / penalty which has attained finality on 15/6/1994 has been stayed nor the auction sale under the proclamation of sale was stayed. In the absence of any order staying the recovery, mere filing of Misc. Application would not fall in any of the categories specified in rule 68B (2) of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act and, therefore, the period during which the Misc. Application was pending cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation under Rule 68B of the I.T. Act.