ORAL JUDGMENT PER F.I.R EBELLO, J. Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in taking steps to sell of the land and house standing thereon which according to the petitioner is of his ownership and stands in his name. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to recover tax dues of his father for the block years 1986-96 and considering the explanation to Section 222(1) of the Income Tax Act, that action is without jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner’s case is as under:- The property was purchased on 3rd December, 1974 when the petitioner was a minor in his name by his father. A house was constructed thereon somewhere in 1979-80. The petitioner was born on 25th October, 1969. The property and the property along with the house is shown as standing in the petitioner’s name atleast since the year 1979-80. The petitioner on attaining majority effected necessary corrective entries on 25th October, 1988 in the record of Khopoli Nagar Parishad as well as the record of the Tahsildar at Khopoli. 4. There was a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner’s father on 28th March, 1996. During the search an amount of Rs.9,556/- and jewellery of the value of Rs.1,08,200/- was found. In pursuance of the said search an order under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act was passed. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner’s father Shri John Oomen was treated as a defaulter and the Department has served on the petitioner’s father notice of demand treating him as a defaulter under the Income Tax Act. On 5th March, 2002 the 1st respondent issued a I.T.C.P.-16 on petitioner’s father attaching the petitioner’s property Oomen Villa for tax dues of the petitioner’s father. The Respondent No.1 in February, 2007 issued I.T.C.P.17 under Rule 53 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Rules 1961 i.e. notice for settling a sale proclamation regarding the petitioner’s property. The petitioner on being informed about the sale by his father, by letter of 7th April, 2007 filed his objections before the 1st respondent contending that the action of attaching and further proceedings for auction sale were illegal. The petitioner on being informed about the sale by his father, by letter of 7th April, 2007 filed his objections before the 1st respondent contending that the action of attaching and further proceedings for auction sale were illegal. According to the petitioner on 22nd August, 2007 the 1st respondent issued a summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioner asking him to appear and produce relevant documents for substantiating the petitioner’s claim of ownership. In pursuance of the summons the petitioner appeared and produced the relevant documents. By an order of 21st September, 2007 which was received by the petitioner on 11th October, 2007 the petitioner was informed that his objections were rejected and the auction proceedings are being initiated in respect of the attached property to recover the arrears of tax dues. Petitioners contention is that Section 222 of the Income Tax Act would not apply and consequently the action of the respondents is without authority of law. Hence the reliefs as prayed for. Reply has been filed by Elsy Mathew, Tax Recovery Officer. It is contended that the property was inherited property and not self acquired property. Reliance is placed on the explanation to Section 222(1) of the Income Tax Act. Based on that it is set out that the respondents are entitled to in law to attach and sale the property. 5. The questions for our consideration are:- 1. Does the purchase in the name of the minor son amount to a transfer within the meaning of the explanation to Section 222(1)? 2. If on fact it is found that the house was constructed on the land in the year 1979-80 and stands in the name of the petitioner much before a demand was made on his father for the year 1986-96, whether the petitioner in whose name the house and the property stands was liable and the property and house could be attached and sold. 6. 6. To answer the first question, for our consideration we may gainfully refer to the provisions of Section 222(1) which reads as under:- "222(1) When an assessed is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax, the Tax Recovery Officer may draw up under his signature a statement in the prescribed form specifying the amount of arrears due from the assessee (such statement being hereinafter in this Chapter and in the Second Schedule referred to as "certificate") and shall proceed to recover from such assesses the amount specified in the certificate by one or more of the modes mentioned below, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Second Schedule--- (a) attachment and sale of the assessor’s movable property. (b) attachment and sale of the assessor’s immovable property; (c) arrest of the assessee and his detention in prison; (d) appointing a receiver for the management of the assessee’s movable and immovable properties. (b) attachment and sale of the assessor’s immovable property; (c) arrest of the assessee and his detention in prison; (d) appointing a receiver for the management of the assessee’s movable and immovable properties. Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, the assessor’s movable or immovable property shall include any property which has been transferred, directly or indirectly on or after the 1st day of June, 1973, by the assessee to his spouse or minor child or son’s wife or son’s minor child, otherwise than for adequate consideration, and which is held by, or stands in the name of any of the persons aforesaid; and so far as the movable or immovable property so transferred to his minor child or his son’s minor child is concerned, it shall, even after the date of attainment of majority by such minor child or son’s minor child, as the case may be, continue to be included in the assessee’s movable or immovable property for recovering any arrears due from the assessee in respect of any period prior to such date." A perusal of the explanation on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the revenue, would contemplate that the movable or immovable property has been transferred directly or indirectly on or after the 1st day of June, 1973, by the assessee to his spouse or minor child or son’s wife or son’s minor child, otherwise than for adequate consideration, and which is held by, or stands in the name of any of the persons aforesaid; and so far as the movable or immovable property so transferred to his minor child or his son’s minor child is concerned, it shall, even after the date of attainment of majority by such minor child or son’s minor child, as the case may be, continue to be included in the assessee’s movable or immovable property for recovering any arrears due from the assessee in respect of any period prior to such date. It would be, therefore, clear that there must be a transfer of property on or after 1st June, 1973 in favour of the minor child. In the instant case as we have noted earlier the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner who was then a minor. Does purchase in the name of minor amount to a transfer within the meaning of the explanation to Section 222(1). In the instant case as we have noted earlier the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner who was then a minor. Does purchase in the name of minor amount to a transfer within the meaning of the explanation to Section 222(1). Transfer is defined for the purpose of capital assets under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act and includes sale, exchange or relinquishment of the assets or extinguishment of any right. The other sub-clauses need not be adverted to. It is, therefore, clear that the transfer would include sale, exchange or relinquishment of the assets. In the instant case the property was purchased in the name of the minor as in law a minor cannot contract. That purchase was in the year 1974. The property continued to be in the name of the minor. The dictionary meaning of "transfer" in K.J. Aiyar’s Judicial Dictionary reads amongst others as under:- "Transfer must carry with it "from" and "to". In case either of them is wanting, there can be no transfer." In our opinion, therefore, considering the definition of transfer and the dictionary meaning of transfer, on the facts of this case there would be no transfer in so far as the immovable property is concerned. 9. The next aspect of the matter is of the house standing on the said property. There is no material to show that the income from which the house was constructed. The fact, however, remains that the house stands in the records in the name of the petitioner right from the year 1979-80. This fact is not disputed by Revenue. Even otherwise the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the revenue records indicating and which would raise a presumption that the property with the structure (house) atleast from the assessment year 1979-80 stands in the name of the petitioner herein. There is no material to show that at any point of time that the house was shown in the name of the petitioner’s father. This would be one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is even assuming that the house was constructed by the father the transfer in terms of the explanation must be for recovery of the tax arrears of the father for a period prior to the date of the transfer. The father’s dues are for the block assessment years 1986-96. The other aspect of the matter is even assuming that the house was constructed by the father the transfer in terms of the explanation must be for recovery of the tax arrears of the father for a period prior to the date of the transfer. The father’s dues are for the block assessment years 1986-96. The house stands in the name of the son from 1979-80. In our opinion, therefore, considering these facts on record it cannot be said that there has been a gift or exchange or transfer by any other means of the house which would fall within the explanation and consequent thereto respect of which the respondents could have attached and sold the house and property. 8. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the proposed sale of the land and the house by Respondent No.1 is without the authority of law. In the light of that petition made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed