GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Provisional attachment orders passed under Section 281B - Held that:- A mere reading of the proviso clearly shows that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not carry any merit. Indeed, the proviso says that the period of extension of provisional attachment shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days after the date of order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later. Since the provision of sixty days period .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioners have filed the stay applications only before the appellate authority. Even the guideline B(iii) of the Instruction No.1914 also states that the decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by the assessing officer and his immediate superior, therefore, the stay applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be taken up for hearing and disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the above, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made clear that since the stay applications are also pending, the respondents need not resort to any coercive proceedings against the petitioners including the realization of the balance amount of ₹ 23,87,948/- till then. With the above direction, all the writ petitions are dismissed. - W. P. Nos.15318, 15319, 17143 & 17144 of 2015 - Dated:- 18-6-2015 - T. Raja, J. For the Appellant : Mr S Feroz Khan For the Respondent : Mr T Pramod Kumar Chopda, Sr Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Mr.T.M.Ramali .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Act, 1961 against both the individual and the company. Now it is represented that as against the original orders of assessment, the petitioners have filed nine appeals before the appellate authority viz., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai and that the department has also realized a sum of ₹ 1,33,86,909/-, leaving the balance of ₹ 23,87,948/-, in the meanwhile, pending disposal of the appeals. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners, while challenging the provisional .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther six months. Again on the third occasion on 26.8.2013, the orders of attachment were extended for further six months. Again on 26.2.2014, the orders of attachment were extended for another one year. Yet again on 25.2.2015, the orders of attachment were extended for another 60 days. Totally, the provisional attachment orders were made to be in force for a period of 28 moths, namely, 2 years and 4 months, which is totally running contrary to Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t, their efforts went in vain. On the other hand, the officials are showing more keenness to extend only the provisional attachment orders, as a result, the petitioner and his family are not in a position to operate the bank account, thereby the petitioner along with family members have been put to great prejudice and hardship. Again challenging the action taken by the assessing officer, he further submitted that questioning the correctness of the assessment orders passed on 31.3.2015, the petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uidelines/instructions issued by the department not to proceed forcibly or coercively against the assessee during the pendency of the appeals, unmindful of the circular issued by the department, is keeping on extending the provisional attachment orders again and again violating Section 281B of the Act. Concluding his arguments, he further submitted that as a result of the wrong provisional attachment orders passed repeatedly infringing the aforesaid provision of law, a sum of ₹ 1,33,00,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioner and his company should be set at naught with a further direction to the respondents to refund the money whatever realized till now to the petitioners. 3. In reply to the above contentions, Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, urging this Court to dismiss the writ petitions, relying heavily on Section 281B, submitted that the proviso to the said section clearly answers the prayer against the petitioners that the Principal Chief Commissioner or the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stand to any reason. Therefore, the contention made by the petitioners that the provisional attachment orders extending beyond the period of two years shall not be allowed to continue, is far from acceptance. 4. This Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. In this context, it is necessary to extract Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, as follows:- ''Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. 281B.(1) Where, du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee in the manner provided in the Second Schedule. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, proceedings under sub-section (5) of section 132 shall be deemed to be proceedings for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment. (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sment, whichever is later.'' 5. A mere reading of the aforesaid proviso clearly shows that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not carry any merit. Indeed, the proviso says that the period of extension of provisional attachment shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days after the date of order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later. Since the provision of sixty days period after the order of assessment or reassessment whichever is late .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tay applications before the appellate authority, till the result of the appeals and stay applications, in all fairness, the respondents will not further proceed with regard to the realization of the balance amount. He has also further submitted that it may take at least a minimum of six months for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners, as they were all filed only on 30.4.2015. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has requested this Court to ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version