K. Gnanaprakasam, Chairperson—This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the Order dated 4.2.2005 made in appeal No. 14/2004 in OA No. 241/1998 by DRT, Ernakulam.

2. The appellants are the defendants 2 and 4 in the OA and they have filed two applications before the Recovery Officer in IA-30/004 and IA-31/2004 to set aside the sale of Item Nos. 1 to 3 in the Schedule, and both the petitions came to be dismissed. As against the same, they have preferred an appeal before the learned PO in Appeal No. 14/2004, and the same was dismissed on 4.2.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the respondents.

3. The main contention that was raised in the appeal is that the sale was not properly conducted by the Recovery Officer, and the sale was adjourned on several occasions, and no fresh sale proclamation was issued, and therefore, the sale said to have been held, is not proper and valid. It is also stated that the property was not sold for a proper price.

4. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondents would contend that the sale was held as provided under relevant Rules of the II Schedule to the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, and the sale was adjourned for want of bidders, and taking note of the fact that nobody came forward to bid the property for such a high price, the Recovery Officer issued fresh sale proclamation, reducing the reserve price after due notice to the appellants, and they have not filed any objections for the same. That, thereafter, the properties were brought to sale and only one bidder, viz. Anugraha Charitable Trust, the 2nd respondent herein alone participated in the auction held on 27.1.2004 and it was adjudged as the highest bidder, and the sale was confirmed in its favour. The Sale Certificate has also been issued and further proceedings have been completed.

5. On going through the appeal papers, it is revealed that recovery proceedings were initiated and sale proclamation dated 9.4.2002 was issued and the upset price was fixed at Rs. 19.50 lakh. As there were no bidders, a fresh sale proclamation dated 2.5.2003 was issued reducing the upset price to Rs. 15.70 lakh and the sale proclamation dated 2.5.2003 was issued for the sale to be held on 10.6.2003. Even on that date there were no bidders and the sale stood adjourned from time-to-time, and finally it was adjourned to 27.1.2004. On that day, the 2nd respondent herein bid the properties for Rs. 15.80 lakh. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that when the sale stood adjourned on several occasions, fresh sale proclamation was not issued and without issuing fresh sale proclamation, the sale was conduced.

6. The relevant Rules with regard to adjournment or stopping of sale are provided under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Recovery Officer to adjourn any sale to a specified date and hour, and the Officer conducting any such sale, has the discretion for adjourning the sale after recording reasons for such adjournment, and issuance of fresh sale proclamation is warranted under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 when a sale of immovable property is adjourned under Sub-rule (1) for a longer period than one calendar month. Yet another circumstance under which a fresh proclamation of sale is required to be issued is, when the auction purchaser commits default in payment of the purchase money, as it is set forth in Rule 67. Though the appellants have raised a plea that sale was adjourned from time-to-time, they are not able to point out whether it was adjourned beyond a period of one month and only in the circumstances, issuance of fresh sale proclamation does not at all arise. The circumstances under which a fresh sale proclamation need be issued under Rule 67 also does not arise in this case. As such, the plea taken by the appellants that sale was conducted without issuing fres