Case title: K Subramaniam V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.No.5336 of 2023
Decided on: 15.02.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice C. Saravanan
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, along with the involvement of the Income Tax Department. The fourth respondent denies executing a sale deed dated 24.02.2012, which was registered as Document No.1981/2012. To support this claim, the fourth respondent presented a certificate from S1FS India, Forensic Science Organization, stating that the sale deed was forged. The petitioner, on the other hand, faced a private complaint from the fourth respondent, leading to the filing of Crl. O.P.No.14617 of 2015, which was later dismissed by the court. Additionally, an investigating officer filed a final report confirming the forged nature of the sale deed.
There is a history of litigation between the parties, with the fourth respondent appearing as a party in person. The petitioner and the fourth respondent had a sale agreement, but the fourth respondent alleges that their signature was forged on the document. The cancellation of the sale agreement further complicates the authenticity of the sale deed.
The Income Tax Department also plays a role in the case, with arguments presented by the department’s counsel and the fourth respondent. The court is tasked with determining whether the impugned order should be quashed, considering the complex nature of the dispute and the conflicting claims made by the parties involved.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Income Tax Act, 1961: Specifically, Rule 11(6) of the second schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which outlines the available remedies for the petitioner in case of disputes related to tax matters. The option for parties to approach a civil court to establish property rights.
Supreme Court Decision: Reference to a Supreme Court decision (SLP(Criminal) No.9087/2015) where it was stated that allegations in criminal proceedings were of a civil nature, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the suggestion to pursue civil remedies.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant raised several contentions in the case. Firstly, there was concern that the Tax Recovery Officer had already made assumptions regarding the property transfer and tax arrears, potentially leading to a biased decision. Additionally, the appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it pertained to the attachment of assets by the Income Tax Department due to tax arrears, conflicting with Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant pointed out discrepancies in the sale of the property, noting that the sale was followed by an attachment order, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the transaction. Moreover, the appellant questioned the authenticity of the sale deed dated 24.02.2012, suggesting it was a forged document due to financial incapacity and other factors.
These contentions collectively aimed to challenge the validity of the transactions, question the actions of the Tax Recovery Officer, and seek resolution through legal avenues provided by the Income Tax Act and relevant legal provisions.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents contended that the sale deed dated 24.02.2012, registered in Document No.1981/2012, was a forged document as per the certificate from the Forensic Science Organization. They argued that the petitioner had not filed a civil suit against the fourth respondent, making the sale in favour of the petitioner valid and binding. Additionally, they claimed that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to declare the sale deed as void, emphasizing the need for legal recourse through a civil suit as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.
COURT’ S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court meticulously analyzed the contentions raised by the parties involved in the dispute over the validity of a sale deed dated 24.02.2012 in Coimbatore District.
The court delved Into the core issue of the alleged forgery of the sale deed, which was supported by a certificate from the Forensic Science Organization. This crucial piece of evidence led the court to question the authenticity and legality of the transaction. The respondents vehemently argued that the sale deed was indeed forged, casting doubt on the petitioner’s claim of ownership based on this document. Furthermore, the court scrutinized the petitioner’s failure to initiate a civil suit against the fourth respondent, as required by the Income Tax Act, 1961. This legal aspect played a pivotal role in the court’s analysis, highlighting the procedural lapses on the petitioner’s part. The jurisdictional authority of the second respondent to declare the sale deed void was also a point of contention, with the court emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and due process.
Ultimately, after careful consideration of all arguments presented, the court rendered its judgement. The writ petition challenging the order was dismissed, with the court directing the petitioner to pursue legal recourse through a civil suit in accordance with the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision underscored the importance of following established legal procedures and seeking redress through the appropriate judicial channels.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here read the full judgement.
