2003 (11) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax whereby the securities furnished by the petitioner in terms of our order have been rejected - The question whether a particular security is sufficient or not is to be determined by the Commissioner, who is obliged to protect the interest of the Revenue - On this aspect this court would not like to intervene in the exercise of power of judicial review

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of securities by Commissioner of Income-tax

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the securities furnished in the form of immovable properties. The petitioner's counsel argued that the securities, which were immovable properties belonging to the petitioner's wife, were sound. Even if the agricultural land offered as security was under acquisition, the petitioner was willing to provide an undertaking for any compensation received. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel stated that the agricultural land offered as security had also been acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority.

The court held that the determination of whether a security is sufficient or not lies with the Commissioner, who must protect the interests of the Revenue. The court refused to intervene in this matter through judicial review, emphasizing the Commissioner's discretion in assessing the adequacy of the securities. The petitioner's request to modify the previous order was rejected as untimely, with the court stating that any grievances should have been addressed promptly through the appropriate legal remedies available.

Regarding the prayer for listing a writ petition filed by another party, the court noted that the said petition was already on the regular board, requiring no further orders. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the rejection of securities was dismissed by the court.