TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is yet to be attached by the respondent, and it is stated that the respondent is present in the petitioner's bank to attach the said account, while this Writ Petition is being argued before this Court. Respondent is restrained from attaching the petitioner's EEFC Account No.50200025012377, at HDFC Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, till the petitioner's approaches the ITAT, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Chennai, dated 27.10.2017, by way of Appeal. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue expresses her apprehension that the petitioner/assessee may indefinetly delay in filing the Appeal, and therefore, states that, the Court should fix time limit for filing such Appeal before the ITAT, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays, under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), and the period of limitation of 60 days would commence from the date of receipt of copy of the order appealed aginst. 3. From the postal cover, by which, the petitioner was communicated the impugned order, it is seen that, the same was despatched from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 on 09.12.2017, and the petitioner has received the same on 11.12.2017, (as could be seen from the seal affixed on the reverse of the cover). Therefore, the period of limitation shall commence from 12.12.2017, i.e., excluding the date, on which, the impugned order was received by the petitioner. However, much before the expiry of the 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue as to the correctness of the order of attachment passed on an assessee without issuing notice under Section 156 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Coroamandel Oils Pvt., Ltd., Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer T 1 and others in W.No.26821 of 2016, and after taking into consideration of its intra Court's decision, in the case of Sri Lakshmi Brick Industries Vs.The Tax Recovery Officer reported in (2013) 351 ITC 0345 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of (Sri Mohan Wahi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2001) 248 ITR 799, by order, dated 14.09.2016, allowed the Writ Petition on the following terms:- '' 14. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court observed that the matter had not attained the character of final and conclusive order, and therefore, it did not have any effect on the certificate proceeding, which remained in abeyance pending decision by a final and conclusive order. 17. However, in contradistinction to the present case, the Appeal filed by the petitioner/assessee has been allowed in full by ITAT, and demand of tax, in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 was Nil, and with regard to two assessment years, it has resulted in refund. Thus, to say that the order of attachment should still continue till the matter reaches the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be an interpretation, which would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, more particularly, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Lakshmi Brick Industries (supra) being the jurisdictional Court for the respondent, the same would bind over the respondent, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (M/s. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., and another Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta) reported in A.I.R. (1962) S.C. 1893, that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities, or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it, either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. 21. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of this Court in Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd.,( supra). On a carefully going through the said decision, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing No.50200025012377, at HDFC Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, which is yet to be attached by the respondent, and it is stated that the respondent is present in the petitioner's bank to attach the said account, while this Writ Petition is being argued before this Court. 7. Considering the above facts, the respondent is restrained from attaching the petitioner's EEFC Account No.50200025012377, at HDFC Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, till the petitioner's approaches the ITAT, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 Chennai, dated 27.10.2017, by way of Appeal. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue expresses her apprehension that the petitioner/assessee may indefinetly delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
