9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Income Tax department – Held that: - Assessee a constituent of the HUF would, therefore, have an undivided share in the amount lying in the bank account of the HUF. – Department, would not be entitled to attach and appropriate entire amount which was in the account of the HUF for the liabilities of the assessee as an individual, it can only attach and appropriate the amount in credit in the bank account of the HUF only to the extent falling to the share of the said assessee - the tax liability was that of assessee in his individual capacity, the action of the department claiming the amount from the account of the HUF with bank to the extent it does not fall to the share of assessee in the HUF, is unsustainable, is required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e signature of the Respondent No.1 herein and by the said assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,49,01,030.00 was made and the said Naresh Chheda was directed to pay further Tax. A notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the said Act) was issued calling upon the said Naresh Chheda to pay further tax of Rs.63,59,240/. The said Naresh Chheda filed an Appeal under Section 246(A) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, challenging the said order dated 29-12-2009. The said Naresh Chheda, by a letter dated 20-1-2010, addressed to the Respondent No.1 requested that the demand of tax be kept in abeyance in terms of Section 220(6) of the said Act, till the Appeal is finally disposed of. Thereafter, a dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner thereafter, issued its Chartered Accountant's letter dated 3-15-2010, addressed to the Respondent No.1, requesting to refund / return the amount of Rs.63,59,240/which according to it, was wrongly debited from the account of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 in turn, addressed a communication dated 7-6-2010 to the said Naresh Chheda in his individual capacity, contending that the account of the Petitioner, which has been debited, stands jointly in the names of the Petitioner as well as the said Naresh Chheda. As indicated above, aggrieved by the fact that the Petitioner's account has been debited for the liability of the said Naresh Chheda in his individual capacity that the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be returned by the Income Tax Department to the Bank so as to credit the same in the HUF account from which the amount was withdrawn by the Income Tax Department. The Learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that the same would be done by the Petitioner within the time that will be stipulated by this Court. 6 In our view, considering the fact that the tax liability was that of Naresh Chheda in his individual capacity, the action of the Respondent No.1 claiming the amount from the account of the HUF with Respondent No.2 to the extent it does not fall to the share of Naresh Chheda in the HUF, is unsustainable, is required to be set aside. 7 On the Petitioner's intimating the share of the said Naresh Chheda in the said account No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
