2012 (7) TMI 773 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition - attachment of the Savings Bank Accounts petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondents in causing the bank account of the minors to be attached - account maintained by the petitioners with the respondents 3 and 4 is not being operated by the minors and the nature of transactions clearly reveal that it is part of the running business by the concerned firm - attempt of the petitioners to club the above liability in respect of different firms, as explained by the respondents 1 and 2 in their statement, by filing the present writ petition is not liable to be entertained - no merit in the writ petition - writ petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Attachment of Savings Bank Accounts
2. Interpretation of Ext.P2 judgment
3. Liability of petitioners for other firms

Analysis:

Attachment of Savings Bank Accounts:
The petitioners sought relief from the High Court to lift the attachment of their Savings Bank Accounts held in various banks. The petitioners argued that the attachment was unjustified, especially considering a previous judgment (Ext.P2) by a Division Bench of the Court. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, contended that the petitioners' reliance on Ext.P2 judgment was incorrect. They highlighted that the Division Bench's decision in Ext.P2 was specific to a certain demand for the assessment year 2008-09 and did not absolve the petitioners of liabilities related to other assessment years or connected firms. The respondents explained that the petitioners' accounts were part of a business operation and that the relief granted in Ext.P2 was limited to a particular demand. The Court noted that the accounts had been attached prior to the Ext.P2 judgment and found no grounds to lift the attachment, dismissing the petitioners' claims.

Interpretation of Ext.P2 judgment:
The Division Bench's Ext.P2 judgment was crucial in this case as it determined the extent of relief granted to the petitioners regarding a specific demand for the assessment year 2008-09. The respondents clarified that the relief provided in Ext.P2 was not applicable to other demands pending for different assessment years or related to other firms within the 'Meenakshy Group.' The Court emphasized that the relief granted in Ext.P2 was subject to the payment of a specified amount and did not absolve the petitioners of all liabilities. The judgment was interpreted to have limited applicability, focusing on the demand raised in the name of a specific individual for a particular assessment year.

Liability of petitioners for other firms:
The respondents detailed the nature of the establishments within the 'Meenakshy Group' and the outstanding amounts due for the assessment year in question. They explained discrepancies in the initial notices issued and subsequent corrections made regarding the amounts owed by the firms. The Court observed that the petitioners' accounts were linked to the business operations of the concerned firms and were not solely operated by minors. The petitioners argued that the Ext.P2 judgment should shield them from further coercive actions, but the Court found their claims unmerited. The judgment highlighted that the petitioners failed to raise objections to the account attachments before the Ext.P2 judgment was passed, and their attempt to consolidate liabilities from different firms in the present writ petition was not entertained. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitioners' claims, affirming the attachment of their Savings Bank Accounts based on the circumstances and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.