Limitation period for tax recovery under Rule 68B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is reckoned from the date of finality of the assessment order, which was confirmed post the dismissal of the special leave petition.

ORDER :

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

An assessment order in respect of block assessment was issued in respect of the petitioner on 22.12.2006 imposing tax liability of Rs.68,14,378/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in TCA No.128 of 2006, which was dismissed on 22.08.2012. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the said judgment in Special Leave Petition [C] No.6942 of 2015. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 5.05.2015.

2. Meanwhile, pursuant to the issuance of certificate under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the I-T Act), an order of attachment was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer in respect of the immovable property of the petitioner on 06.11.1998. Much later, pursuant to certificate dated 01.05.2018 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,13,294/-, another order of attachment was issued. In order to realise the above amounts, a proclamation of sale was issued in Form No.I.T.C.P.13. The said proclamation of sale is challenged in this writ petition.

3. The principal ground on which the petitioner challenges the proclamation of sale is that the limitation period of three years prescribed in Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the I-T Act expired. Therefore, it is contended that the attachment order stands vacated by operation of law in terms of sub-rule 4 of Rule 68B.

4. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

(i) Noorudin v. Tax Recovery Officer , (2001) 251 ITR 357 (‘Noorudin’);

(ii) T.Subramanian v. The Tax Recovery Officer , order dated 25.04.2019 in WP(MD) No.17040 of 2016 (‘T.Subramanian’);

(iii) Sri K. Venkatesh Dutt v. the Tax Recovery Officer , order dated 16.09.2016 in W.P.No.49185 of 2016.

5. In response to these contentions, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue submits that the limitation period under Rule 68B(1) is required to be reckoned from the date on which the order giving rise to the demand for payment of tax, interest, penalty and the like becomes final. After pointing out that the petitioner assailed the assessment order by filing appeals all the way up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he submits that such order attained finality only on 15.05.2015. Consequently, he submits that the limitation period should be reckoned from the end of financial year 2015-16, i.e.31.03.2016. If reckoned from such date, he submits that the limitation period would end on 31.03.2019. Since the proclamation of sale was issued on 12.06.2018, he submits that limitation is not a bar to the sale of the property. By relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajiv Yashwant Bhale v. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune , [2017] 82 Taxmann.com 140 (Bombay), he submits that the Division Bench considered the limitation period under Rule 68B in the context of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. After referring to several paragraphs of the said judgment, he points out that the Division Bench examined the meaning of the expression “conclusive” in Rule 68B(1) and held that it means the point at which finality, closure or ending is reached. Applied to the facts of this case, he contends that such finality was attained only upon the SLP being dismissed.

6. Learned senior standing counsel also submits that a fresh certificate bearing TRC No.15/CR-2/2018-19 dated 01.05.2018 was issued and that both the certificates are referred to in the proclamation of sale. Therefore, he contends that, even assuming without admitting that the first attachment was deemed to be vacated under Rule 68B(4