- Rajendran was served with a notice of demand under section 156 on May 30, 2012 and June 12, 2012 in respect of assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. It was finally quantified that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,04,56,280 and notice of demand was served on him on January 5, 2013 under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the relevant form. The petitioner purchased the properties from S. Rajendran, the defaulter-assessee thereafter. Subsequent to the purchases, orders of attachment were made on December 21, 2015. The petitioner lodged its objections with the Tax Recovery Officer for raising the attachment. After considering the objections the Tax Recovery Officer not only declined to vacate the attachment, but also declared the sale transactions effected by S. Rajendran favour of the petitioner null and void. On a writ petition : the Court held that;, that it was the function of the civil court to declare a transaction null and void and the Tax Recovery Officer cannot exercise that function. Therefore, the Tax Recovery Officer clearly erred in declaring the transactions to which the petitioner was a party null and void.
Court also held that the attachment made subsequent to the purchase by the petitioner would relate back to and take effect from January 5, 2013 onwards. The order of attachment was valid. Court also observed that a sale is a contractual transaction. For a contract to be valid, it must be made by the free consent of parties competent to contract. In rule 16(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 it is expressly stated that the defaulter-assessee shall not be competent to deal with the property. (AY. 2005 06 to 2011-12)