Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. According to the appellants, the said auction is non est in the eye of law. The auction is conducted in breach of the requirements under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961, which has been made applicable to the proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, ('the RDDB Act', for short), by section 29 thereof. Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act mandates that no sale of immovable property shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of dues became conclusive.

10. In order to understand the contentions raised by the WA NO. 2684 OF 2025 2025:KER:92195 parties, it would be appropriate to refer Section 29 of the RDDB Act and Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 29 of the RDDB Act reads thus:

"29. Application of certain provisions of Income- tax Act.--The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the Income-tax:

13. While going through the judgment in C.N.Paramasivam, we noticed that in that judgment, the Apex Court considered Rules 57 and 58 of the Income Tax Act read with Section 29 of the RDDB Act. The Apex Court did not consider Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act. The question of law considered in C.N.Paramasivam and the principles laid down as extracted above do not pertain to Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence the principles laid down in C.N.Paramasivam are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.

21. It is true that an Appeal would lie to the Tribunal against the orders passed by the Recovery Officer. That does not mean that the Recovery Officer is conducting an independent proceeding, unconnected with the proceedings under the DRT Act. The Recovery Officer is a creature of the Statute and he would get jurisdiction only on issuance of a Recovery Certificate by the Tribunal.

22. The DRT does not contain any provision regarding limitation in the matter of sale of attached property. The provisions of Second and Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Certificate Proceeding, 1963, were made applicable to the Recovery proceeding under DRT Act only for the purpose of a fair and transparent procedure to be adopted by the Recovery Officer in the matter of Recovery of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions. In case the Recovery Officer is given a free hand without any kind of established procedure governing the Recovery proceedings, it would result in arbitrariness. It was only to regulate the proceedings the relevant Recovery Rules under the Income Tax Act were made applicable to a Recovery proceeding under the DRT Act. The various other provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Recovery Rules cannot be imported to nullify the action taken by the Recovery WA NO. 2684 OF 2025 2025:KER:92195 Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that Rule 68B dealing with time limit for sale of immovable property after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand for recovery of which, the property has been attached by the Recovery Officer has no application to an attachment made by the Recovery Officer under Section 25 of the DRT Act. Accordingly, we reject the principal contention regarding the alleged violation of Rule 68B.