K. Nagabhusanam vs The Tax Recovery Officer-XII Business Range-II, Office of the Income Tax Office, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, The Sub Inspector of Police, (C.I.D) C.I.D. Branch, Pondicherry, The District Registrar, Central Madras, Chennai and N.M. Karunakaran

Honourable Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the claim of the petitioner relating to the ownership of the property in question, attached by the first respondent, on 28.2.1997, could be taken up for investigation, by the first respondent, under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the petitioner may appear for such an investigation, before the first respondent, along with the relevant documents to substantiate her claims.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no objection for appearing before the first respondent to prove her claims, with regard to the ownership of the property. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either parties, the petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent, on 12.3.2012, along with the relevant documents, and to let in necessary evidence to substantiate her claims. Thereafter, the first respondent shall cause an investigation, in respect of the claims made by the petitioner, in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that the property in question shall not be brought for sale, by public auction, pursuant to the attachment of the said property, by the first respondent, on 28.2.1997.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.