9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed April 5, 1999. The petitioners contend that the impugned orders of attachment under section 281B of the Act are unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, without authority of law, passed without due application of mind and are patently bad in law, misconceived and vitiated. It is prayed that these orders be set aside and quashed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule returnable after eight weeks. Respondents waive service. Heard Mr. F. B. Andhyrajina, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the prayer for interim relief. Also heard Mr. R. V. Desai, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Desai was also heard on earlier occasion when the petitioners prayed for ad interim relief pending admission. At that time, we were to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icipated liability of Rs. 2.68 crores. On a perusal of the above affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the value of the premises mentioned at items Nos. 3 and 4 in the list of attached properties was shown at Rs. 2.74 lakhs and Rs. 2.99 lakhs as against the actual market value of over Rs. 6 crores, only to justify attachment of bank accounts and F.D.Rs. It was further contended that the attachment in this case under section 281B was illegal and without jurisdiction because the conditions precedent did not exist. It was stated that value of the immovable properties shown in the affidavit was ridiculously low. Learned counsel furnished a report of valuation of the two immovable properties attached by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. We also asked him to inform us why the Department, on the face of the valuation report of their own valuer, has not lifted on their own the attachment on the bank accounts and the F.D.Rs. On the prayer of learned counsel for the Revenue, further time was granted to enable him to obtain instructions. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr. Desai informed us that he has been instructed by the joint Commissioner of Income-tax concerned, that since the valuation of immovable properties were bound to fluctuate, the Department would prefer to have the provisional attachment under section 281B on the bank deposits and F.D.Rs. and for the shortfall of Rs. 1,70,000 that remains thereunder between the amounts under attachment and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order made under sub-section (1)." It is clear from a plain reading of the above section that it is intended to empower the Assessing Officer to make a provisional attachment of any property of the assessee during the pendency of any proceedings or assessment or reassessment of any income, even though there is no demand outstanding against the assessee, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of the Revenue. To ensure that this power is not misused, a number of safeguards have been provided in the section itself. It is not necessary for us, at this stage, to examine the same. One thing is clear that this power should be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted demand was estimated at Rs. 2.68 crores and book value of the two immovable properties, which was the subject-matter of attachment, was only Rs. 4.27 lakhs, the bank accounts and fixed deposits were attached. The contention of the assessee was that the two immovable properties attached by the Assessing Officer were worth Rs. 5.83 crores as per the valuation of the approved valuer as against the estimated tax liability of Rs. 2.68 crores. That being so, there was no justification for attaching the bank accounts and the F.D.Rs. of the assessee which has very seriously affected the day-to-day business of the assessee. The Revenue wanted time to get the two immovable properties valued themselves. They were allowed to do so. They have got th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciate this stand of the Revenue which, according to us, is unreasonable and unfair. The object of section 281B is to enable the concerned officers to take suitable measures to protect the Revenue. It is in the nature of attachment before judgment. It should be applied only to achieve that object. We were confident that having found that valuation of the immovable properties attached by him was Rs. 2,66,30,000, as against the estimated liability of Rs. 2,68,30,000, the Assessing Officer, on his own, would release the bank accounts and F.D.Rs. from attachment. We are sorry that he has not done so. On the other hand, he wants to retain attachment on the bank accounts and F.D.Rs. and release the immovable properties from attachment. We have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
