2013 (10) TMI 311 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment of bank accounts for recovery in case of sick industries - Attachment of the bank accounts and recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Tata Davy 1997 (8) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , wherein it has been held that until and unless permission is obtained from AAIFR, such recovery cannot be affected - Action of the respondents by attachment of the bank accounts is illegal and accordingly the attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner for enforcing the recovery under the assessment order is hereby quashed Revenue is free to move an application before the AAIFR for seeking its permission for affecting the recovery under the assessment order, and shall act in accordance with the permission as may be granted by the said Board Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Concealment of sales leading to addition in income.
2. Attachment of bank accounts and recovery proceedings.
3. Pending appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR).

Analysis:

Concealment of Sales:
The petitioner's total income was assessed with a significant amount attributed to the sale of concealed tyres as per information from the Central Excise Department. The petitioner contested that including the entire price of the tyres as profit is impermissible under the law, citing a relevant judgment. The petitioner's industry being classified as sick and pending appeal before AAIFR was highlighted to argue against the recovery proceedings. The respondent contended that due to no stay of recovery proceedings, the attachment of bank accounts was justified.

Attachment of Bank Accounts and Recovery Proceedings:
The order detailed the concealment of sales by the petitioner based on information from the Central Excise Department. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 145(3) of the Act, rejecting the books of accounts and treating the under-reported production as concealment of sales. The petitioner's argument against the recovery proceedings due to the pending appeal and the hardship faced was countered by the respondent, justifying the attachment of bank accounts.

Pending Appeal Before AAIFR:
The petitioner's appeal against the assessment order was pending before the CITA (respondent No. 3) for three years without a decision. The delay in deciding the appeal and the pending application for staying the recovery required attention. The court directed the petitioner to seek expeditious hearing of the appeal and stay if necessary, within 30 days of filing the application.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the petition with directions for expeditious hearing of the appeal and consideration of stay application by respondent No. 3. The attachment of bank accounts was deemed illegal without permission from AAIFR, quashing the recovery proceedings. Respondents were allowed to seek AAIFR's permission for recovery. No costs were awarded in the judgment.