2017 (4) TMI 825 - HC - Income Tax

Denial of natural justice - bank accounts of petitioner, a statutory local authority, have been attached on account of non-payment or deposit of the T.D.S. and not been heard, opportunity of making submission and document has not been afforded to them - Held that - The petitioner being a statutory local authority, interest of justice requires that they should be granted one more opportunity of being heard and for laps of any omission on the part of some officer the Statutory Body should not suffer. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow this petition in part and dispose it of in the following manner - The petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer or the competent authority of the department along with a certified copy of this order and submit all their objections with regard to the demands made along with all relevant documents on 10th of April, 2017 and on the same being done, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the objections and documents that may be filed by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Non-payment of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) leading to bank account attachment, lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Non-Payment of TDS and Bank Account Attachment:
The judgment addresses the grievance of the petitioner, a statutory local authority, regarding the attachment of their bank accounts due to non-payment or deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The court notes that the petitioner claims they were not afforded the opportunity to be heard, make submissions, or present relevant documents before the attachment. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel argues that opportunities were provided, but the petitioner failed to avail them, leading to coercive action. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and emphasizes the need to ensure that the statutory body does not suffer due to any lapses on the part of the officers involved.

2. Opportunity for Hearing and Decision Making:
Considering the circumstances and the petitioner's status as a statutory local authority, the court deems it necessary to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present their case. The judgment directs the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer or the competent authority of the department with a certified copy of the order. The petitioner is instructed to submit all objections and relevant documents regarding the demands made on a specified date. The competent authority is then tasked with deciding the matter in accordance with the law after considering the objections and documents filed by the petitioner. Failure to comply with the opportunity granted may result in the competent authority proceeding as per the law.

3. Disposal of the Writ Petition:
In conclusion, the court partially allows the petition and disposes of it by outlining the steps to be taken by the petitioner and the competent authority. The judgment specifies that until a proper order is passed or action is taken as per the law, any further recovery based on the impugned order/demand shall remain stayed. Additionally, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account is to be released until a fresh decision is made in accordance with the court's directions. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, providing clarity on the course of action to be followed by both parties involved in the dispute.