Karnataka High Court Judgments — 1998

The tribunal found no substance in the petitioner's contention that the liability was not properly determined. The addition of interest to the principal amount was considered correct, and the sale of property for recovery of outstanding dues could not be faulted.

The tribunal held that the impugned orders were passed without considering the petitioner's objections and in a mechanical fashion, violating principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer failed to judicially exercise the power of imposing penalty.

The tribunal acknowledged the arguable case presented by the petitioner regarding the capacity of purchase and the incorrect aggregation of income. However, due to the petitioner's default in appearing, the case was remanded for a fresh hearing.

The tribunal held that the word 'building' in Rule 68 should be interpreted to include 'flats' in common parlance. The purpose of human habitation is achieved by both independent houses and flats.

The tribunal held that the tenants' defense did not pertain to their rights against the landlord but rather challenged the landlord's title based on a prior trust dispute. Since the trust litigation was settled, the tenants could not use it to avoid paying rent arrears.