9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty upon the petitioner in respect of the demand of Rs. 3.94 crores with effect from 22 August 2006 when a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued to Bank of Baroda. 2. The petitioner is in arrears of payment of tax and penalty during the period 1993-94 to 1997-98 to the extent over Rs. 7.00 crores including interest as on 20 August 2007. As the petitioner had failed to discharge his tax obligation, and as the Bank of Baroda held amounts of the petitioner with it, the Income Tax Department by a notice dated 22 August 2006 to the Bank of Baroda under Section 226(3) of the Act called upon it to remit the amount of the petitioner lying with it. The aforesaid notice was not responded to by the Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a claim with respect to the amounts of the petitioner lying with them. When Bank of Baroda was issued a notice under Section 226(3) of the Act, it was obliged to remit the amount of Rs. 3.95 crores to the Income Tax Department. It is the petitioner's contention that Bank of Baroda did not honour the notice of the Income Tax Department and became a deemed defaulter resulting in attachment of Bank of Baroda's account with Reserve Bank of India on 20 August 2007. Thereafter, Income Tax Department withdrew the attachment of Bank of Baroda amount with Reserve Bank of Baroda on 28 August 2007 merely on an oral assurance by Bank of Baroda that they would pay the amount to the Income Tax Department. It is the petitioner's case that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evoke the notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Act. Thus, no fault can be found with the withdrawal of notice to Reserve Bank of India. However, the Income Tax Department has not withdrawn the notice dated 22 August 2006 issued under Section 226(3) of the Act on Bank of Baroda seeking to attach the amount belonging to the petitioner lying with Bank of Baroda. Thus, the attachment of the account continues. The petitioner in effect is seeking to vary the order admitting and granting stay by this Court in Writ Petition No.395 of 2008 filed by Bank of Baroda. This cannot be done by filing another petition but application for variation of the order granted in Writ Petition No.395 of 2008 has to be done in proceeding in that petition, if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
