Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Mr. Kaka further submits that Rule 68B of the IT Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Revenue to complete the sale of the immovable property attached by it for recovery of any tax, interest, fine/penalty or any other sum within the prescribed period. 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 of Schedule II of the IT Act and if the sale is not completed within the prescribed period, the attachment, if any, levied on the property is liable to be vacated. In fact, as held by the judgments of the High Court of Madras and Karnataka, the attachment is deemed to have been vacated already by operation of Rule 68B(4) of the Second Schedule of the IT Act after the expiry of the period of limitation of three years from the date of the order of Settlement J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.3366.2017.doc Commission in facts of this case. Mr. Kaka submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of India House vs. Kishan N. Lalwani.1 that there is no equity in applying the period of limitation.

71. Then, the petitioner refers to the attachment and a final notice of demand. The order giving effect to the Settlement Commission's directions was passed on 16th November, 2012 together with final notice of demand. However, the petitioner raises the issue of applicability of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the IT Act and submits that the Tax Recovery Officer erred in law and on facts and proceeded to acquire vacant possession of the residential bungalow for effecting its sale vide his letter dated 1st November, 2016. The Tax Recovery Officer ought to have appreciated the provisions of Rule 68B, the permissible period of four years from the date of finality of demand i.e. 1st December, 2011 being the date of the order under section 245-D(4) of the IT Act. Thus, the petitioner himself approbates and reprobates in the sense that the requisite period, according to the petitioner, begins to run from 1st December, 2011, but in the same breath, now, the petitioner projects in the J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.3366.2017.doc memo of appeal the ground that this period is four years from the date of finality of demand. Though he refers to all the communications emanating from him, yet, the permissible period of four years has been carved out in the above manner. This, the petitioner computes on the basis of a standing order 164E dated 1st March, 1996, under which, the period was extended to four years. The petitioner, thus, was not sure as to whether the period is three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive or as the case may be final or as understood by him. Pertinently, the petitioner was aware that the Rule is employing the words "from the end of financial year", in which the order giving rise to the demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of section 245-I of the IT Act". The petitioner, at one stage, refers to the order dated 1 st December, 2011 passed by the Settlement Commission as triggering point. However, in the grounds, he conveniently, does not refer to the period consumed by his own applications before the Settlement Commission and his own request for postponement or deferment of the recovery proceedings or to J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.3366.2017.doc hold them in abeyance. These requests were made by the petitioner on his own and because of the financial problems faced by him. All this was a creation of the petitioner himself.

78. The Division Bench noted that on several occasions the Revenue attempted to auction the flat, but it did not materialise. Ultimately, the proclamation of sale dated 23rd February, 2004 was issued for auction of the attached flat. That was objected to on the ground of the limitation prescribed under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the IT Act. That objection was rejected and the sale of the attached flat was confirmed. That is how the writ petition was filed. The Division Bench, therefore, noted that Rule 68B is clear. Given the fact that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15th June, 1994 had attained finality, several attempts were made to sell the flat, but they did J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.3366.2017.doc not materialise. The eventual auction notified on 23 rd February, 2004 was clearly beyond statutory period. In para 12, based on this reasoning, the Revenue's contention was rejected and the argument of the petitioner Joshi was accepted. It was also the case of the Revenue that the miscellaneous application of petitioner Joshi was dismissed by the tribunal and the starting point would be the date of the order of the tribunal on the miscellaneous application. Since it was to expire on 31st March, 2004, the confirmation of the sale on 30 th March, 2004 would be within the period of limitation. The Division Bench noted this argument and rejected it on the ground that the miscellaneous application filed by petitioner Joshi was not to seek stay of the levy of tax, interest and penalty, confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 15th June, 1994. The miscellaneous application was filed only to seek stay of the auction on the ground that the attached flat was the only flat owned by the petitioner and if he is evicted from the same, he and his family members would be rendered homeless. Even if such an application was pending, there was no stay against the recovery or enforcement of the demand. It is on such a view that the petition was allowed by applying Rule 68B.

80. We see no difficulty for Brij Lal (supra) was not relied upon as much for the construction and interpretation of Rule 68B, but for understanding the scheme of the settlement as well. We do not see how we can take any assistance from the observations in Brij Lal's case (supra) for the interpretation of Rule 68B. Even that decision does not carry the petitioner's case any further.

81. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. There would be no order as to costs.