9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. For the year 2004-05, the assessee petitioner declared his income to be Rs.64,53,070/- where as the Assessing Officer assessed the income to the tune of Rs.1,18,93,070/- under Section 143(3). However, petitioner's appeal against the said assessment order was allowed and that addition was set aside and the order of C.I.T.(Appeals) was confirmed by the I.T.A.T. For the year 2005-06 the petitioner-asesssee declared his income to be Rs.1,06,27,862/- whereas his income was assessed by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.3,76,27,860/- under Section 143(3). However, C.I.T.(Appeals), in the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, only added Rs.1,85,200/- to the declared income of the writ petitioner. For the year 2006-07, the declared income of the petitioner was Rs.78,57,635/- which has been assessed by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.3,09,55,402/- under Section 143(3) which is the subject matter in the appeal preferred by the writ petition before the C.I.T.(Appeals). In this year, a writ petition was preferred by the writ petitioner i.e. W.P.(T) No. 1247 of 2009 wherein direction was issued to the C.I.T (appeals) by this Court on 26.11.2010 to decide the appeal expediti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with above attachment, the respondent-Revenue further proceeded to attach virtually the working capital of the writ petitioner, whose payment against the bills outstanding with the J.S.E.B. are attached by exercising power under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in the order it is not mentioned how much of the amount of the petitioner has been attached by the subsequent attachment order dated 22nd September, 2011, which according to the writ petitioner is about Rs. 17 Crores. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Department did not proceed to determine the liability of the petitioner, which should have been done only within 21 months from the date of getting the incriminating documents under the search and seizure operation in the financial year when the search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Meaning thereby, that the search and seizure was conducted on 31st October, 2009 and the proceeding should have been completed within 21 months from 31st October, 2009. However, from the list of the events submitted by the Revenue in pursuance of this Court's order dated 23rd January, 2012 also it is clear that the Department did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty of the writ petitioner of crores of rupees. The petitioner is a regular assessee of the Revenue i.e., Income Tax Department and has admittedly submitted returns, which have been accepted and when there was addition in income of the writ petitioner by the Assessing Officer that has been set aside by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the higher Appellate Authority and in one of the matters, where the addition was made by the Revenue, then appeal has been preferred in this Court and in the W.P.(T) No. 1247 of 2009 preferred by the writ petitioner, coercive action has been stayed vide order dated 26.11.2010. Therefore, not only this is a case where at present there is no liability pending against the writ petitioner of the Income Tax Department and according to the petitioner, the petitioner is seeking refund of Rs.69.00 lakhs from the department. Therefore, in that fact and situation, there was no question of petitioner's running away from the Department, who has duly co-operated in the matter all times and also when the computer hard disk was opened for downloading the accounts of the writ petitioner. The petitioner also submitted the answers to the questionnaire is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the Revenue that was dealt with the speed because of the reason that the business of the writ petitioner was in various sectors and, therefore, all documents were required to be segregated and separated to club the mining operation activity and other activities for the purpose of deciding the liability. If this plea is accepted that documents were required to be separated then we are of the considered opinion that when material document itself were downloaded from the computer in the month of September, 2011 i.e. after almost 2 years from the search and seizure operation and next attachment order was passed even prior to it and time available to Revenue for completing of assessment was only 21 months. It is true that there may be complex and voluminous documentary evidence, which may have been obtained by the Revenue Department and though documents may be in haphazard manner, which may require skilled expert opinion, for which the special audit can be ordered and if the Department could have proceeded, it could have done so. Be that as it may, the delay in the proceeding cannot be said to be fatal in all cases because of the reason that any time the Revenue may form o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power and therefore,it is not necessary to form opinion about liability to maximum of possible liability and also this power cannot be such arbitrary that the Assessing Officer need not to indicate or know that properties of asessese which is being attached is of what value? In this case to judge the discretion of the Assessing Officer under Section 281 B of the Act, we found from the records produced by the Revenue that while recommending for attachment of the properties of the writ petitioner after obtaining the approval for attaching the property of the writ petitioner either in earlier occasion or subsequent occasion only, it has been stated by the Assessing Officer and evident from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Patna that "there is likelihood of raising of substantial demand in this case" but the extent of the liability to the tune of the property sought to be attached and apprehension is that the writ petitioner may dispose of the property is not there, any where. The same is the position in the communication sent to the Commissioner, Income Tax dated 29th August, 2011 and only it has been stated that " there is likelihood of raising of substantial demand in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
