2010 (2) TMI 109 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment of property under section 226(3) Recovery of tax The Assessing officer attached the fixed deposits of Rs. 10 lakhs. A writ petition filed by the petitioner s husband challenging the block assessment was dismissed. In this case Madras High Court-held that the petitioner s husband was the assessee in default. The petitioner had, in law, an effective and efficacious remedy by approaching the tax authorities concerned under the act to redress her grievances in the manner known to law. The petitioner had to approach the forum created under the Act. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's fixed deposit attached for husband's income tax arrears, legality of attachment, availability of alternative remedies under Income-tax Act, maintainability of writ petition.

Issue 1: Petitioner's Fixed Deposit Attachment
The petitioner's fixed deposit of Rs.10 lakhs was attached by the Income-tax Officer in lieu of arrears of income tax of her husband. The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash the communication from the bank requesting withdrawal of the attachment order. The petitioner argued that the amount under attachment belonged to her and remitting it to the Income-tax Department would cause her hardship and prejudice. The court noted that the deposit was considered as the income of the petitioner's husband since she had no source of income and was not an income-tax assessee.

Issue 2: Availability of Alternative Remedies
The court considered the argument by the Income-tax Department that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under the Income-tax Act, such as filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, or the Tax Bench of the High Court. The Department contended that the petitioner should exhaust these remedies before approaching the court through writ proceedings. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that when alternative and equally efficacious remedies are open to a party under the Income-tax Act, they should pursue those remedies instead of invoking the special jurisdiction of the court.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Writ Petition
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should approach the forum created under the Income-tax Act to address her grievance, as her husband was the assessee in default and the attachment was made by the Assessing Officer under the Act. The court held that the communication from the bank did not provide a basis for the petitioner to seek relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and directed the petitioner to bear her own costs, with liberty given to approach the income-tax authorities for redressal in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act and directing the petitioner to seek redressal through the appropriate tax authorities.