2017 (4) TMI 412 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment orders - proof of notice issued - Held that - As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order dated 30.03.2012 has become final. It was issued to M/s.Sankar Traders. None appears for the enquiry at the time of passing the order. Thereafter, a letter was sent by the petitioner representing M/s.Sankar Traders, which shows that he is the Proprietor. This letter was sent by the petitioner to the third respondent on 27.09.2003. The information obtained by the respondents from the Income Tax Department under Section 138 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act dated 10.03.2004 also shows the name of the petitioner as a Proprietor of M/s.Sankar Traders. For the said concern, assessment has been made by showing the petitioner as a Proprietor. The matter did not rest there. Form 5-A submitted on behalf of M/s.Sankar Traders dated 31.03.2004 also shows the name of the petitioner as a Proprietor. Petitioner would submit that there appears to be a case of forging the signature of the petitioner. This Court is afraid that the said contention cannot be accepted. It is not as if the respondents have relied upon one document but three documents. The earlier proceeding has become final. The reasoning adopted by this Court on the earlier occasion would apply to this case also as it is the petitioner, who, now seeks to raise the contention of forgery. The petitioner has also not proved the factum of participating in the enquiry proceedings in the year 2003 and thereafter, sent a letter seeking adjournment. Thus this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ownership of property in the context of attachment order under Section 7-A of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner initiated a second round of litigation challenging the order dated 22.01.2014, claiming not to be the owner of the property subject to attachment. The Court previously dismissed the writ petition on 23.04.2014, stating that the challenge should be made elsewhere if the petitioner had grievances regarding the determination order. The petitioner's argument that the attached property was individual, not related to the business, was deemed a disputed factual matter beyond the scope of the writ petition.

The petitioner's subsequent representation was rejected based on statutory returns and information from the Department of Income Tax, which identified him as the proprietor of M/s.Sankar Traders. The petitioner's assertion that the order dated 30.03.2012 was inapplicable to him due to his father being the proprietor at the time was refuted. The Court noted that the petitioner had represented M/s.Sankar Traders and was identified as the proprietor in various documents, including submissions to the third respondent and assessments by the Income Tax Department.

The petitioner's claim of signature forgery was dismissed as the respondents relied on multiple documents, and the petitioner failed to prove non-participation in the 2003 enquiry or subsequent adjournment requests. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, aligning with its previous reasoning and dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner's failure to substantiate claims and the reliance on documented evidence led to the dismissal of the petition.