The court upheld the validity of tax recovery proceedings and exemption claims, emphasizing the importance of established legal remedies.

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order passed by the respondent / Tax Recovery Officer-1, Coimbatore dated 24.11.2021 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010.

2. Relevant portion of the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2021 reads as under:-

“2. As requested by you the copy of extension of time limit as per Proviso to Rule 68B(1) by the competent authority is herewith enclosed.

3. The claim made by you in your letter cited above in respect of exemption from attachment as per Rule 10 of the Second Schedule is rejected as it is apparent from the records submitted by yourself to the department claiming that you are doing business in gold jewellery in the name and style M/s Lakshmi Jewellery, Coimbatore. The evidence available with this office is enclosed herewith for your information and noting.

4. As per the notice issued on 17.11.2021 you were directed to inform the encumbrances, charges etc., on or before 24.11.2021 on the attached property which you have not complied. Therefore this office is compelled to proceed with the public auction of your property to recover the tax arrears.

5. If you wish to avoid public auction of your property, you are directed to pay the tax arrears of Rs.46,72,041/- and interest thereupon without any further delay and co operate with the recovery proceedings. Your petition dated 22.11.2021 stands disposed.”

3. An Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 07.12.2011 in response to a Return of Income filed on 24.07.2009. No appeal was filed by the petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 07.12.2011 under Section 246A of the . The Assessment Order dated 07.12.2011 attained finality as no appeal was filed. The petitioner was also issued with a Penalty Order dated 29.06.2012 under Section 271(1)(c) of the .

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore. Vide order dated 16.09.2013, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I. No further appeal has been filed against the said order dated 16.09.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore.

5. Thus, both the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore dated 16.09.2013 and the order of the Assessing Officer dated 07.12.2011 and 29.06.2012 have attained finality and liability against the petitioner stood confirmed.

6. Since the amount that was assessed to be paid by the petitioner had remained unpaid, the petitioner's property was attached on 27.01.2015. However, no sale was made pursuant to the aforesaid Attachment Order dated 27.01.2015.

7. A Second Attachment Order came to be passed on 10.02.2021. In response to the same, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent with a prayer to drop the proceedings in the light of limitation under Rule 68(B) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date of the Financial Year in which the proceedings were completed was 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 and therefore the limitation expired on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2017 as per the unamended Rule 68B of the 2^nd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. It is submitted that since the proceedings were initiated for attaching the property for the second time on 10.02.2021, the period of limitation under Rule 68(B) to the 2^nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stood expired on 31.03.2022.

10. It is submitted that the prior period was later substituted with effect from 01.09.2019