2019 (12) TMI 508 - HC - Income Tax

Provisional attachment of property - adjournment seeked on behalf of revenue - HELD THAT - Today again learned counsel for the respondents seeks an adjournment. Even the PCIT (Central) Ludhiana has sought and been granted exemptions from appearance. We find this situation intolerable. In the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the provisional attachment would be to the extent of ₹ 45 crores (as against the proposals for provisional attachment where it was mentioned that a sum of ₹ 22 crores odd was unaccounted under different heads (in all three petitions)).

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from filing certified copies and permission to file true copies of annexures.
2. Exemption of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax from personal appearance.
3. Challenge against the provisional attachment of 1300 flats by the Revenue.
4. Dispute over the provisional attachment causing prejudice to the petitioners.
5. Legal contentions regarding the statutory power of provisional attachment and assessment completion timeline.
6. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding provisional attachment.
7. Inability of the Revenue to quantify figures leading to potential harm to the assets.
8. Decision on the petitions and the extent of provisional attachment.

1. Exemption from filing certified copies and permission to file true copies of annexures:
Several applications sought exemption from filing certified copies of annexures and permission to file true copies. The court allowed these exemptions based on the reasons recorded in the applications.

2. Exemption of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax from personal appearance:
Applications were filed seeking exemption of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax from personal appearance before the Court on a specified date. The court allowed these applications based on the reasons recorded in the applications.

3. Challenge against the provisional attachment of 1300 flats by the Revenue:
The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment of 1300 flats by the Revenue following a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners claimed that the provisional attachment order caused significant prejudice to them due to various legal actions initiated against them.

4. Dispute over the provisional attachment causing prejudice to the petitioners:
The petitioners argued that the provisional attachment of their entire stock in trade of 1300 flats had led to adverse consequences, including hindering business operations and legal complications with allottees and lenders. This situation was deemed to be causing severe harm to the petitioners.

5. Legal contentions regarding the statutory power of provisional attachment and assessment completion timeline:
The respondent's counsel contended that the statute empowered provisional attachment and highlighted the statutory deadline for completing the assessment, indicating that the Revenue could not be rushed to expedite the process. Reference was made to a previous judgment supporting the provisional attachment in similar cases.

6. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding provisional attachment:
The court noted a previous judgment where provisional attachment of stock in trade was upheld but clarified that the facts in the present case were different, as the entire stock in trade of the petitioners was provisionally attached, unlike the previous case.

7. Inability of the Revenue to quantify figures leading to potential harm to the assets:
Despite the passage of more than a year since the search, the Revenue could not provide a tentative amount for recovery, causing concern about potential harm to the assets. The court expressed apprehension that the delay in quantifying figures might jeopardize the assets due to various legal proceedings.

8. Decision on the petitions and the extent of provisional attachment:
After considering the arguments and the situation, the court disposed of the petitions by directing that the provisional attachment would be limited to ?45 crores, adjusting the amount from the initial proposal. The court emphasized the need for a reasonable attachment amount to prevent undue harm to the petitioners' business.