2012 (11) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment of Property - Held that Valuation of the property mentioned in Ext.P8 has not been done by any external agency, still going by the statements contained in Ext.P8, the property mentioned therein is worth Rs.2.95 crores. Therefore, there is no reason to continue the attachment covered by Ext.P6 once the petitioner furnishes adequate security to take care of the interest of the respondents. With this in mind writ petition is disposed off - petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- within one month and the title deeds pertaining to the property - property is free from encumbrance and that they will not deal with the property in any manner until the appeal is decided and the documents are released - once the petitioner complies with the above directions, the attachment effected as per Ext.P6 will be lifted - Tribunal is directed to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible.

Issues:
1. Liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. Attachment of properties by the 3rd respondent.
3. Request for lifting the attachment and offering alternate security.
4. Valuation of the property offered as alternate security.
5. Consideration of the petitioner's request and disposal of the writ petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in real estate development, faced a liability issue for the assessment year 2008-09. Initially, an order (Ext.P1) was passed by the 1st respondent holding the petitioner liable. Subsequently, an appeal led to a reduction in liability through Ext.P2 order by the appellate authority. This revised liability amount was further rectified, resulting in Ext.P4. The current liability stands at approximately Rs.2.15 crores, with an ongoing appeal (Ext.P5) pending consideration by the 5th respondent Tribunal.

2. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 order attaching specific properties of the petitioner to secure the interest of the respondents during the appeal process. The petitioner sought to utilize the attached property and made requests through Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 to lift the attachment, offering an alternate property as security. However, the request was initially denied through Ext.P9, leading to the filing of a writ petition.

3. The petitioner's primary contention was to lift the attachment on the properties mentioned in Ext.P6 and substitute it with an alternate property mentioned in Ext.P8, valued at Rs.2.95 crores as per their claim. The court acknowledged the need for security but emphasized that if the petitioner could provide adequate security to safeguard the respondents' interests, there was no justification to maintain the attachment.

4. Although the valuation of the property in Ext.P8 was not externally assessed, the court relied on the petitioner's assertion of its value. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.75,00,000 and the title deeds of the property mentioned in Ext.P8 within one month. The petitioner assured that the property was unencumbered and committed not to deal with it until the appeal's resolution.

5. The court, considering the submissions and circumstances, issued directions for the petitioner to comply with the specified conditions to lift the attachment. Once the petitioner fulfills the obligations, as outlined in the directions, the attachment imposed by Ext.P6 will be lifted. Additionally, the 5th respondent Tribunal was instructed to expedite the disposal of the pending appeal (Ext.P5) with due notice to all concerned parties.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the liability determination, property attachment, security provision, valuation considerations, and the final directives issued by the court for resolution.

← Previous Next →