Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) By this application the petitioners have basically challenged orders of attachment dated May 30, 1997, and dated November 2, 1999. The former one is provisional order of attachment under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), while doing so the petitioner has also challenged an order dated October 12, 2001, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Calcutta, in purported compliance with the orders dated August 7, 2000, and August 22, 2001, passed in the previous writ petition being numbered (WP) 1456 of 1997. The facts of the case, which lead to filing of the instant application, are stated hereunder :
(2.) The first petitioner entered into an agreement dated April 29, 1997, with respondent No. 9 for purchase of two flats on the first and second floors of the premises No. P-360/2, Keyatala Road, Kolkata, covering approximately an area of 3,500 sq. ft. and half of the ground floor including common facilities, etc., (hereinafter referred to as "the said property"), on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement at a consideration of Rs. 21,50,500. At the time of signing of the said agreement the first petitioner duly paid the entire consideration of the said property and possession of the same was handed over on May 7, 1997, by respondent No. 9.
(3.) The petitioners after having entered into an agreement as above and taken possession, engaged security agency to look after the said property. At the time of handing over of possession of the said property flooring, fixing of sanitary items, doors and windows, paintings and colourings were yet to be done, although the basic construction was otherwise completed. In spite as aforesaid since respondent No. 9 did not take any step to complete the work or execute deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file a suit being numbered 94 of 1997 in the court of the learned 9th District Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore, for specific performance of the contract, confirmation of possession, decree for costs of unfinished works and for perpetual injunction. The petitioner after service by advertising in the newspaper finished the entire work on the said property at its own costs. On June 2, 1997, the petitioner could find a provisional order of attachment dated May 30, 1997, issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 281B of the said Act affixed on the said premises. The petitioner immediately thereafter informed respondent No. 4 that it had purchased the said property and was in possession of the same. Respondent No. 4 was also requested by the petitioner to vacate the provisional attachment order in respect of the said property. Respondent No. 4 heard the petitioner, however, the provisional order of attachment was not vacated. As such the petitioner came to this Court by filing a writ petition as mentioned above challenging the aforesaid order of provisional attachment. It appears the provisional order of attachment was extended from time of time, however, none of such order of extension was communicated. The writ petition as above was disposed of by an order dated August 7, 2001, by the hon'ble Justice P. C. Ghose by directing respondent No. 1 to decide the matter in accordance with law while permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation for the said purpose. All points were kept open to be decided by respondent No. 1. His Lordship was however pleased to direct to maintain status quo until the matter was decided by respondent No. 1. The representation made by the petitioner was considered and heard pursuant to the aforesaid order. The order dated August 7, 2001, was also clarified and/or modified subsequently by another order dated August 22, 2001. The representation was rejected and it was held by the Commissioner in the impugned order that since the ownership of the said property in question has not been transferred by executing a registered deed of conveyance respondent No. 9 cannot be said to have ceased to be the owner and the petitioner has not acquired any title in the property. It was further observed by the Commissioner that the petitioner had not taken possession of the same and this was found upon inspection by the competent official of the Revenue who has submitted a report.;