9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents 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 told by Mr. Desai that the attachment of the immovable properties and the bank accounts of the petitioners had been done under section 281B of the Act. He wanted time to obtain instructions. Thereafter, an affidavit of Shri P. Babaprasad, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-48, Mumbai, was filed wherein it was stated that as per the records, the total tax demand against the petitioners after finalisation of pending assessments was likely to be to the tune of Rs. 2.68 crores. In the said affidavit, the Joint Commissioner also furnished the details of the amounts lying with the bank, and the two premises which had been attached and their valuation. The details are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Revenue made by Chawla Architects and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., who are approved valuers on June 17, 1999, As per the valuation report, the valuation of room No. 106, Mehta House, is Rs. 1.60 crores and flat No. 6 in Fionika is Rs. 4.23 crores. According to learned counsel, even if attachment under section 281B was justified, the attachment of the above two properties itself was more than sufficient. There was no need to attach the bank accounts and fixed deposits, According to him, the bank accounts and fixed deposits have been attached only with a view to harass the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped 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)." 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 ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 them valued by the Department Valuer. The value, as per the Departmental Valuer, is Rs. 2.66 crores. Obviously, the two immovable properties attached by the Assessing Officer which. on their own valuation are worth Rs. 2.66 crores are sufficient to ensure the full recovery of the estimated liability of Rs. 2.68 crores. Even in such a situation, insistence to keep the money belonging to the assessee with the bank to the tune of Rs. 2.06 crores under attachment and offer to release the immovable properties is most unreasonable and irrational. In our view, after the valuation of the property by their own Departmental Valuer at Rs. 2.69 crores, the Revenue should have on their own lifted the attachment from the money lying in the bank. We fail to understand this stand of the Revenue. Admittedly, there is no demand in this case outstanding against the assessee. The Income-tax Officer, in anticipation of the demand, which is estimated at Rs. 2.68 crores, has attached the immovable properties, which, according to him, were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
