JUDGMENT A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J.- challenge in writ petition is against exhibit P22 order of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi, in appeal filed under rule 86 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961. brief facts leading to exhibit P22 order are as follows: In respect of arrears of income-tax on account of individual assessment completed on petitioner, as also in respect of arrears of tax of private company, of which petitioner was director, Tax Recovery Officer made proclamation for auction of 5.25 acres of land in Thrissur district belonging to petitioner. reserve price of property was fixed as Rs. 15,75,000. petitioner moved for stay of recovery proceedings and auction was kept in abeyance subject to payment of Rs. 4 lakhs by February 13, 1995. It is submitted that petitioner paid said amount. Thereafter, Tax Recovery Officer took up matter with Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and sought permission from him for going ahead with sale. On getting said permission, Tax Recovery Officer intimated petitioner of fact that he was proposing to go ahead with sale. Although petitioner requested for deferment of sale by month, said request was not granted and proclamation dated May 1, 1995, was issued for conducting auction on May 12, 1995, in respect of 4 acres and 91 cents of land after fixing reserve price of Rs. 14,73,000. facts in writ petition disclose that auction took place on said date and was confirmed in favour of one T. A. Moideen who bid property for Rs. 15,11,000 and deposited sum of Rs. 3,77,750. petitioner being aggrieved by action of Tax Recovery Officer moved this court through O. P. No. 7180 of 1995 where he obtained interim order dated May 12, 1995, staying further proceedings of Tax Recovery Officer. It is case of Department that copy of stay order was not received by Tax Recovery Officer and that it was under those circumstances that sale proceeded, as per proclamation, on May 12, 1995. It would appear that later, original petition itself was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter, petitioner preferred writ appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn after reserving right of petitioner to avail of statutory remedies open to her to challenge proceedings of Tax Recovery Officer. Apparently, in meanwhile, petitioner sold her interest in property to another person namely, K. Moideen. As already noted, Tax Recovery Officer continued with sale proceedings and on finding that T. A. Moideen, who was person in whose favour sale was confirmed, had since died, he contacted legal heirs of said T. A. Moideen and, on their remitting balance amounts, confirmed sale in their favour by issuing necessary sale certificates as well. petitioner, thereafter, filed application dated April 15, 2005, before Tax Recovery Officer for setting aside sale in terms of rule 56 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961. There was apparently no order passed by Tax Recovery Officer on said application. This prompted petitioner to prefer appeal to Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in terms of rule 86 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act to quash sale certificate issued by Tax Recovery Officer under rule 65 and to set aside auction of immovable property itself. Exhibit P22 is order that is passed by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and it is this order that is impugned in this writ petition. grounds of challenge against exhibit P22 are mainly that Chief Commissioner did not consider primary contention of petitioner with regard to propriety of Tax Recovery Officer in conducting auction of property in question on May 12, 1995, when there was admittedly order of stay passed in O. P. No. 7180 of 1995. In impugned order of Chief Commissioner, he refers to contention of Department that stay order was not received by them prior to date of auction. other contention raised by petitioner is with regard to incorrectness of amounts shown as arrears for purposes of conducting sale of property. It is case of petitioner that property that was worth more than Rs. 18 lakhs was ultimately sold for approximately Rs. 14 lakhs. It is also pointed out that Chief Commissioner erred in not considering contention of petitioner with regard to permissibility of challenge against order confirming sale, even without challenge being mounted against sale order of Tax Recovery Officer. Reliance is placed by petitioner on decision of Allahabad High Court in Subash Chandra Goyal v. TRO [2002] 255 ITR 289 (All). statement has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein statement has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein sequence of events leading to sale of properties by Tax Recovery Officer, as also confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate, is narrated. It is also pointed out that petitioner, during pendency of proceedings, also sold her property to Mr. Moideen for Rs. 18,60,000 as per document No. 2152, dated October 21, 2002. I have heard Sri Anil D. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri Jose Joseph, standing counsel for Income Tax Department as also Sri Sreelal N. Warrier, learned counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case as also submissions made across Bar, I find that in exhibit P22 order, that is impugned in this writ petition, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax essentially finds against petitioner on two counts. First, it is found that petitioner had not taken any action in terms of rules 60 and 61 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, for purposes of setting aside sale of immovable property by Tax Recovery Officer. It is also found that, in so far as no steps were taken by petitioner in terms of rules 60 and 61, confirmation of sale in terms of rule 63 was automatic. Chief Commissioner then proceeds to hold that in absence of taking any steps under rules 60 and 61, there was no scope for preferring appeal against order passed in terms of rule 63 confirming sale. second point that is found against petitioner is that, during pendency of proceedings, petitioner had sold her interest over property in question to one Mr. Moideen and, hence, it was not open to petitioner to continue to prosecute appeal under rule 86 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act. As regards first issue, no doubt, petitioner would place reliance on decision of Allahabad Court in Subash Chandra Goyal v. TRO [2002] 255 ITR 289 (All), where court finds that appeal would lie against order of Tax Recovery Officer confirming sale. said decision proceeds on basis that, for purposes of rule 86, appeal would lie from any original order passed by Tax Recovery Officer, which is not in nature of order that is conclusive, and, therefore, order by Tax Recovery Officer confirming sale, not being one that is made conclusive under Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, order would be appealable order for purposes of rule 86. In this case, however, I note that, as per scheme of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, which deals with procedure to be followed by income-tax authority for recovery of tax due from assessee in default, procedure that is contemplated provides opportunity to person aggrieved by order of Tax Recovery Officer effecting sale of property, to prefer application to set aside sale on grounds specified therein. These applications can be preferred in terms of rules 60 and 61. act of confirmation of sale by Tax Recovery Officer is in terms of rule 63 of Second Schedule. Rule 63 makes it clear that order of confirmation of sale can be made by Tax Recovery Officer only in situation where no application is made for setting aside sale or where application is made but disallowed by Tax Recovery Officer. In my view, taking into consideration statutory scheme in Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, when order of sale is passed by Tax Recovery Officer, person aggrieved by that order cannot bypass requirements in Schedule, by not preferring application to set aside sale and then opting to challenge order passed under rule 63, confirming sale. To allow person to do so, would do violence to procedural scheme contemplated in Second Schedule. In that view of matter, I see no reason to interfere with findings of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax on maintainability of appeal, against order confirming sale in this case. I also find merit, in findings of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in exhibit P22 order which hold petitioner as not being person interested, for purposes of maintaining appeal since petitioner had during pendency of proceedings alienated her rights over property in favour of another person. Having sold her interest over property to third person, petitioner effectively lost her right to maintain challenge against actions of Department in appeal preferred under rule 86 of Second Schedule. Thus, in any view of matter, I find exhibit P22 order of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax legally unassailable. challenge against said order, therefore, fails, and writ petition is accordingly dismissed. *** Amaravathy Somasundaram v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax