Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Asiya Banu vs The Tax Recovery Officer, Tax … on 6 February, 2008
Author: F I Kalifulla
Bench: F I Kalifulla


ORDER

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the notices issued by the respondent invoking Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the impugned notices, the respondent has called upon the tenants of the premises at No. 168, Sydenhams Road, Chennai-3 to pay whatever amounts due from the tenants to the assessees by name V.M.S. Jafferullah and V.M.S. Haji Mohammed respectively to meet the arrears of tax payable by the said assessees. According to the petitioner, the addressee to whom the impugned notices have been issued are all her own tenants and that Mr. V.M.S. Jafferullah and Mr. V.M.S. Haji Mohammed the assessees have got. nothing to do with the properties, in which the respective tenants have been inducted.

2. Mr. N. Muralikumaran, learned Standing Counsel for the income Tax Department would however contend that the assessees were the owner of the property as per their records for the relevant period for which, the assessment of tax came to be made and in the circumstances, the respondent is fully justified in issuing the impugned notices to the tenants who are liable to pay the rents to satisfy the taxes assessed in respect of Mr. V.M.S. Jafferullah and Mr. V.M.S. Haji Mohammed.

2.1 Learned Standing counsel also points out that by virtue of Clause 11 in the second Schedule even, if the petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned notices, the petitioner can approach the respondent for redressal of her grievance by seeking for necessary investigation to be made as regards any objections to be raised by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that under sub para 6 of Clause 11, even if the respondent reject the objections of the petitioner, the petitioner can approach the appropriate civil forum and seek for the necessary remedies.

3. I find force in the contention of the learned Standing counsel. A perusal of the Clause 11(1) and (6) makes it clear that an efficacious remedy is made available to the petitioner to raise her objections as regards the claim made by the respondent in the impugned notices issued to the respective tenants whom, according to the petitioner were inducted by her and not by the assessees Mr. V.M.S. Jafferullah and Mr. V.M.S. Haji Mohammed. Even under Section 226(3)(vi), it is provided that a person to whom a notice under Sub-section 3 Section 226 is issued, can raise the objection if the sum demanded or any part thereof, is not due to the assessee, or that such sum was not held for or on account of the assessee, in which event, nothing contained in Sub-section 3(i) would get attracted.

4. In the light of the above referred to in-built provisions under Section 226(3) as well as Clause 11 to the second schedule, the petitioner will have to work out her remedy by approaching the respondent himself by filing her objections and it will be for the respondent to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. These writ petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained and the writ petitions are dismissed reserving the petitioner’s liberty to workout her remedy before the respondent himself by filing necessary application, if so advised within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if any such application is filed, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of filing such an application. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.202 seconds.