Dismissing the petition the Court held that ; Ground that the recovery proceedings is now time barred is rejected on the ground that it was inappropriate for Tax Recovery Officer to continue proceedings for realization of tax arrears on account of pendency of proceedings challenging decisions taken by Tax Recovery Officer, irrespective of fact as to whether there was any interim order in such proceedings or not, while computing outer time limit provided for under sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B. ( AY. 1977-78 1978-79)
Mohammed Niyas v. CIT (2018) 165 DTR 240 / 302 CTR 420 (Ker) (HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Attachment of property—Limitation -Appeal – Ground that the recovery proceedings is now time barred is rejected on the ground that it was inappropriate for Tax Recovery Officer to continue proceedings for realization of tax arrears on account of pendency of proceedings challenging decisions taken by Tax Recovery Officer, irrespective of fact as to whether there was any interim order in such proceedings or not, while computing outer time limit provided for under sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B.[ Sch .II R. 11, 68B ]