9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The petitioner, inter alia, prays to quash and set aside the notices dated 16th January, 2017and 17th January, 2017 issued to State Bank of India, ICICI Bank Ltd., and HDFC Bank, under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. 4. Briefly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the subject-matter of the above petition is in regard to the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which, according to the petitioner, were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, raising a tax demand of Rs. 12.85 Crores and Rs. 21.61 Crores receptively. The Assessment Orders were passed on 14th March, 2014 and 30th March, 2015, respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice, more than 15% of the disputed demand, in terms of the CBDT Office Memorandum dated 29/02/2016, has already been recovered for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012- 13. The said petition came to be rejected by the respondent No.2 by directing the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 though it was admitted that not more than 15% of the total demand can be recovered in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29/02/2016 issued by the CBDT. A detailed petition was, thereafter, filed before the respondent No.3 on 18th January, 2017, disclosing the aforesaid facts. But, however, during the interregnum, somewhere on 16/01/2017 and 17/01/2017 the respondent No.1 issued the impugned notices under Section 226(3) of the Act to the Banks, att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the records. For the reasons stated in the said Judgment of this Court in the case of Andrew Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and as it is not in dispute that the facts therein are identical to the facts in the present case, we have no reason to take a contrary view in the present petition. Admittedly, 15% of the disputed amount has already been recovered by the respondent- Revenue and such amount is covered by the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the CBDT. In such circumstances, we find that the respondents were not justified to pass the impugned attachment Notices under Section 226(3) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner, at this stage, seeking refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
