B. Manohar JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha filed Writ Petition No. 11433/2006 challenging five notices dated 3-3-2006 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) of the Income Tax Department to the Managers of five banks where one Sri. Ramajanam was having his accounts. Such notices were issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') stating that a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was due from the said Sri. Ramajanam on account of dues of M/s. Tirupura Bhairavi Math in Northern India (for short 'the Math'). It was these five notices dated 3-3-2006 issued by the TRO to the Banks requesting them not to pay money from the accounts of Sri. Ramajanam, which were challenged by the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha claiming that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) had been executed by Bhishma Pithamaha in favour of Ramajanam. On the writ petition having been allowed and the notices having been quashed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Income Tax Department to refund the sum of Rs. 18,57,999/- to the Banks along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., this appeal has been filed.
2. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent herein) that the respondent will not precipitate the matter, no interim order was granted and the amount in question is still lying with the appellant-Income Tax Department.
3. This case has a chequered history. The Math in question is an Income Tax assessee and for certain Income Tax dues, the properties of the Math, which are said to have been sold by the petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha through his General Power of Attorney, were attached by the Income Tax Department initially in the year 1988, which attachment orders were renewed from time to time or fresh attachment order issued. The Mahanth of the Math Sri. Krishnananda Giri Gowswamy died on 18-09-1989 and thereafter, one Krishnamohanananda Giri Gowswamy claimed to be the Mahanth of the Math. The petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha also made such claim of being the Mahanth on the basis of being legal heir of late Krishnananda Giri Gowswamy.
4. In the year 1995, the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha filed a civil suit, being O.S. No. 147/1995, praying for a declaration that the properties in question belonged to him. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal against the said judgment is pending before the Appellate Court. Although there have been several other suits and writ petitions filed by the petitioner and other parties with regard to the properties of the Math, the details of the same would not be relevant for the purpose of this case, but the filing and pendency of such cases would only go to show that there were disputes pending with regard to the properties in question.
5. What is also relevant to mention is that the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha had never filed his return of income till 6-1-2003, on which date he filed returns of income together for six assessment years comprising of the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002-03. In the said returns, it was for the first time that before the Income Tax Authorities the properties in question were declared by the writ petitioner, to be his properties. It was only after 2003, the petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha started selling his properties through his General Power of Attorney holder Ramajanam. The properties which were sold were also the properties with regard to which the suit for declaration had been filed in the year 1995 by Bhishma Pithamaha himself, which had been dismissed.
6. It may be reiterated that the said properties were attached by the Income Tax Department towards realization of dues of the Math way back in the year 1988. Then, after the sale of properties, a no........