Suresh Kumar Goyal v. Chief Commissionerincome Tax-2), Can Be Passed In The Present Case Aswell

$~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P. (C) No. 6837/2017 & C.M. No. 28463/2017 ARVIND BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner Through :versus Mr. Sameer Dewan, Advocate. CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOMETAX 2 & ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough :Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Mr.Raghvendra Singh, Senior StandingCounsels for Revnue.Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate forIDBI/R2.Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate forGNCTD/R3. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%22.08.2017 1. On 9[th]August, 2017, the following order was passed: “2. Notice. Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, learnedcounselacceptsnoticefortheIncomeTaxDepartment. Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counselaccepts notice for Respondent No.2/IDBI Bank andconfirms that an order, similar to the one alreadypassed in respect of the other property i.e. the orderdated 13[th]July, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.3430/2016 (Suresh Kumar Goyal v. Chief CommissionerIncome Tax-2), can be passed in the present case aswell. 3. It must be noted here that the said orderconcerned the property at Plot No. 84, GroundFloor, HU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi-110088.The present petition deals with the basementportion of the same property. 4.However,Mr.AshokManchandalearnedcounsel for the Income Tax Department states thathe needs time to obtain instructions to verify thefacts. At his request, list on 22[nd]August, 2017.” 2. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned counsel for the Income Tax Departmentis unable to dispute that the attachment proceedings qua both the Basementas well as the Ground Floor of the property in question took placesimultaneously. However, he states that the notice issued on 24[th]May, 2012under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act ’)did not become effective till it was published on 24[th]January, 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the notice underSection 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 24[th]May 2012, muchbeforetheattachmentorderpassedbytheDepartmenton 25[th]November 2013. What was published on 24[th]January 2015 was theauction notice. 4. The Court does not find any distinction between the Ground Floor and atthe Basement of the same property in question considering that all theproceedings in respect of both the portions have taken place simultaneously.It is plain that the SARFEASI Act notice was issued much prior to theorders of the Income Tax Department. Consequently, for the reasonselaborated in the judgment dated 13[th]July 2016 in the W.P. (C) No.3430/2016 (Suresh Kumar Goyal v. Chief Commissioner Income Tax-2),the attachment order dated 25th November 2013 issued by the Tax RecoveryOfficer CIT -7, New Delhi insofar as it relates to the entire basement of theproperty at 84, HU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi is hereby quashed. TheSub-Registrar VI-A, at Rohini, Delhi is directed, within a period not laterthan 4 weeks from today, to proceed to register the Sale Deed executed bythe IDBI in favour of the Petitioner in respect of entire Basement of theproperty in question. 5. The writ petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms. S. MURALIDHAR, J. AUGUST 22, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.