9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1B dated 19th July, 2007 which was upto and valid till 24th January, 2008 - It does not stipulate that the provisional attachment order issued, shall be deemed to be effective and continue beyond the stipulated period mentioned in the order, when there is an injunction or an order by a Court staying the assessment/reassessment proceedings The contention of the petitioner is that there is no connection between the block assessment proceedings and the refunds which are due to the petitioner - The “connection” mentioned in the said order has reference to the reasons stated in the order of provisional attachment and whether the said reasons have any nexus or connection with the assessment/reassessment proceedings, which have been stayed by the Supreme Court Whether the Revenue can pass a fresh order under Section 281B in view of the third proviso to the said Section introduced/inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1988 - The petitioner in fact had filed an application CM No. 2845/2010 challenging the retrospective amendment, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26th May, 2010. - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 19774-75/2005 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terim order dated 5th February, 2007, it has been directed that special audit may go on but no final assessment order would be passed. The said order has been made absolute till the disposal of the appeal. 5. The order dated 28th July, 2005 quoted above was operative and the provisional attachment was to continue for a period of six months, i.e., upto 25th January, 2006. The petitioners have not challenged or questioned any order/extension of provisional attachment under Section 281B by the subsequent orders. However, we may note and record here that it has been contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner No. 1 that they have not been communicated and informed about orders extending the provisional attachment after 25th January, 2006. In the affidavit, which was filed on 21st April, 2008, we may note that the petitioner No.1 has not contended or stated that they were not communicated or informed about the extension orders for continuation of provisional attachment on or after 25th January, 2006. However, it is stated in the affidavit that the purport and spirit behind Section 281B is not to deprive the assessee from the money/refund due to him beyond the maximum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment, the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the *Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee in the manner provided in the Second Schedule. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, proceedings under sub-section (5) of section 132 shall be deemed to be proceedings for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment. (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order made under sub-section (1): Provided that the *Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years. Provided further that where an application for settlement under section 245C is made, the period commencing from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders under the proviso to Section 281B(2) were required to be communicated. The aforesaid decisions pertain to Section 132(8) of the Act and it was stated that the requirement and need to communicate an order under the said section, are equally applicable to the Section 281 B of the Act. 12. As we perceive, we are not required to go into the said aspects and contentions raised by the petitioner No.1 in the present case. Pursuant to the order dated 10th January, 2011, the Revenue has produced before us the original file and we find that the last order under Section 281B was passed on 19th July, 2007. The said order extended the period of provisional attachment upto 24th January, 2008. Thereafter, no order under Section 281B has been passed even after the third proviso to Section 281B was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1988. As no order as of now has been passed by the Revenue under Section 281B after insertion of the third proviso, we need not examine and go into the legal issues and contentions raised. These aspects and legal issues can be examined in an appropriate matter or when and if at all the respondents pass a fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition and we are not concerned with the same. It is also averred that the Supreme Court has granted stay against the block assessment proceedings as the restraint order under Section 132(3) was clamped or revoked fifteen times in respect of one of the premises. The connection referred and mentioned in the order dated 19th May, 2011, does not refer to the nature and character of the additions made or reason for the refunds or the assessment years involved. The connection mentioned in the said order has reference to the reasons stated in the order of provisional attachment and whether the said reasons have any nexus or connection with the assessment/reassessment proceedings, which have been stayed by the Supreme Court. There is certainly nexus and connection between the reasons stated in the order under Section 281B, i.e., pendency of the block assessment proceedings and the proceedings subject matter before the Supreme Court i.e. the block assessment proceeding. We may again note that the Supreme Court has stayed the block assessment proceedings. 15. We wish to further clarify as a matter of abundant caution and state that we have not considered and examined whether the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
