Delhi High Court
Ashok Chawla vs Union Of India on 28 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999 106 TAXMAN 50 Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. This is air application filed by the petitioners seeking restraint on the sale of the petitioners properties which is proposed to be held on 10-6-1998 (Annexure A with the application). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as against the order of assessment, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Tribunal; so far as challenge to the proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is concerned, the same is before this Court.
1. This is air application filed by the petitioners seeking restraint on the sale of the petitioners properties which is proposed to be held on 10-6-1998 (Annexure A with the application). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as against the order of assessment, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Tribunal; so far as challenge to the proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is concerned, the same is before this Court.
2. Opposing the prayer for ad interim relief, the learned senior standing counsel for the department has invited attention of the Court to the facts stated in para 5 of the order of the act of the Tribunal dated 16-6-1997 (Annexure D), wherein the Tribunal has noted the fact of the petitioners themselves having offered the properties for sale, which has been kept in view as a relevant factor by the Tribunal while passing the order of stay dated 16-6-1997.
2. Opposing the prayer for ad interim relief, the learned senior standing counsel for the department has invited attention of the Court to the facts stated in para 5 of the order of the act of the Tribunal dated 16-6-1997 (Annexure D), wherein the Tribunal has noted the fact of the petitioners themselves having offered the properties for sale, which has been kept in view as a relevant factor by the Tribunal while passing the order of stay dated 16-6-1997.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is doubtful whether challenge to the proceedings under section 132 can at all be maintained before the Tribunal and though the plea has been raised before the Tribunal to keep it alive, it is doubtful if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to go into it. The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue having been raised before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to bc raised before this Court.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is doubtful whether challenge to the proceedings under section 132 can at all be maintained before the Tribunal and though the plea has been raised before the Tribunal to keep it alive, it is doubtful if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to go into it. The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue having been raised before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to bc raised before this Court.
4. We are of the opinion that the petitioners' interest deserves to be protected so long as the question of jurisdiction as to whether it is the Tribunal or this Court which is competent to entertain the challenge laid to the proceedings under section 132 is not decided. If the sale is allowed to be held during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the situation could become irreversible in the event of success of the petitioners.
4. We are of the opinion that the petitioners' interest deserves to be protected so long as the question of jurisdiction as to whether it is the Tribunal or this Court which is competent to entertain the challenge laid to the proceedings under section 132 is not decided. If the sale is allowed to be held during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the situation could become irreversible in the event of success of the petitioners.
5. Interest of the respondents is protected by the attachment which has already taken place. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement at the bar under instructions that the petitioners do not challenge the attachment and the petitioners undertake not to alienate or, encumber the property during the pendency of the petition. In view of the statement, it is directed that the sale proposed to be held pursuant to the public notice Annexure-A with the application shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing though the attachment would continue. The additional cost incurred in putting the property for sale shall in any case be borne by the petitioners.
5. Interest of the respondents is protected by the attachment which has already taken place. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement at the bar under instructions that the petitioners do not challenge the attachment and the petitioners undertake not to alienate or, encumber the property during the pendency of the petition. In view of the statement, it is directed that the sale proposed to be held pursuant to the public notice Annexure-A with the application shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing though the attachment would continue. The additional cost incurred in putting the property for sale shall in any case be borne by the petitioners.
6. CM disposed of.
6. CM disposed of.
