2020 (11) TMI 381 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment of Bank A/c. - proceedings under Section 226 - demand notice was issued u/s 156 as the tax was not deposited the petitioner - HELD THAT - Relief sought for quashing of Bank A/c attachment notice is rendered infructous. As to challenge to Assessment Order since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of Statutory Appeal, we are not inclined to cause indulgence, merely on the contention that there are over 600 Appeals pending and for non-availability of the Appellate Authority there is no likelihood of early hearing. Non-availability of the Appellate Authority is however seriously disputed by the respondents. Since the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the impugned assessment order, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence. Petitioner, however would be at liberty to file appropriate application for early hearing which may be considered by the Appellate Authority on its merit.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order and notice of attachment under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 30.12.2019 and a notice of attachment dated 25.02.2020, assessing income at ?33,64,957 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. A demand notice of ?16,53,196 was issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, an attachment notice under Sub-Section (3) of Section 226 of the Act was issued for the petitioner's bank account due to non-payment of tax. The petitioner filed a petition against these actions.

The respondents stated that ?4,45,000 had been attached from the bank account against the outstanding demand, and after the deposit of this amount, the account was released. They also mentioned that the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 144 of the Act, which was pending consideration. The court noted that the facts presented by the respondents were not disputed.

The court found that since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of a statutory appeal against the assessment order, there was no basis for further indulgence, despite the petitioner's contention of delayed hearings due to a backlog of appeals. The non-availability of the Appellate Authority, as claimed by the petitioner, was disputed by the respondents.

Given the appeal already filed, the court declined to provide additional relief but allowed the petitioner to apply for an early hearing, which would be considered on its merits by the Appellate Authority. The petition was disposed of with these observations, and no costs were imposed.