1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.263 OF 2010 Sagar Sharma & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. F.V. Irani i/b. Earnest Legal Associates for petitioner. Mr. K.R.Chaudhari for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1. Before the Court, it is common ground between counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Revenue that on 28th October, 2003 a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioners under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that within a period of two weeks, the petitioners shall file a reply to the notice to show cause before the Tax Recovery Officer 13(1), Mumbai. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states, on instructions, that (i) Until the reply to the notice to show cause is considered and an order is passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, no steps shall be taken for the sale of the property which has been attached; (ii) The proclamation of sale dated 14th January, 2010 and the sale which has been fixed on 16th February, 2010 shall not proceeded with; (iii) In the event the Tax Recovery Officer, while 2 disposing of the application under Rule 11 comes to the conclusion that the properties in question belong to the petitioners, steps shall be taken to revoke the attachment; (iv) The Tax Recovery Officer shall dispose of the application under Rule 11 within a period of twelve weeks from the date stipulated for the submission of a reply by the petitioners; and (v) In the event that an order adverse to the petitioners is passed, no coercive steps shall be taken for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. In the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid statement, while the attachment / prohibitory order shall continue to remain in operation, the order passed by the Commissioner on 18th December, 2008 under Rule 86 and on 14th December, 2009 under Rule 87 rejecting the review will not survive. 3. In view of the statements made by counsel for the Revenue, no further relief is sought at the hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)