9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, there is no such violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the judgment has no precedential value in the present case. The extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to be sparingly used only when the Court finds that the action of the State is completed without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or the order passed is palpably illegal. In my view, none of the above conditions are applicable in the present case. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment order. With regard to the provisional attachment, the reasons recorded by the officer and the explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Asim Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Nikita Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Anurag Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Radha Mohan Ray, Adv ORDER The Court : 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 29, 2019 passed by the income tax department and subsequent demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The writ petitioner is also aggrieved by an attachment notice that was issued under Section 281B of the Act prior to passing of the assessment order. 2. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin 30 days from the date of the notice. In the meantime an order for provisional attachment was issued under Section 281B of the Act on December 26, 2019 attaching the bank account of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate has relied upon several judgments being Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kay Arr Enterprises reported in (2008) 299 ITR 348 (Madras); Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar vs. Ashwani Chopra reported in (2013) 352 ITR 620 (P H); Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AL. Ramanathan reported in (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sachin P. Ambulkar reported in (2014) 221 Taxman 67 (Bombay) (MAG.) to buttress his argument that amounts received on account of a family arrang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion-II, Ernakulam reported in (2010) 189 Taxman 408 (Kerala) to submit that the assessee cannot lift the corporate veil as and when he wants to for his own benefit. He submits that the entire transaction in the present case is that of the petitioner loosing his control over the company as he was one of the main managers and/or director of the company. 6. Considered the above arguments placed on behalf of the Counsels. 7. Having perused the assessment order, I am of the view that I should not interfere with the same at this stage. Without going into the merits of the said order, I find that the officer has dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner and come to a particular finding. Interfering with the same at this stage ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order. 8. With regard to the provisional attachment, the reasons recorded by the officer and the explanation given by Mr. Trivedi are not acceptable to me as this is a provision to be used only in rare situations where the bona fide of the assessee is in question or there has been a clear case of evasion of tax. The Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax bearing Writ Petition No. 2036 of 2019 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1786 while examining a similar case of attachment under Section 281B of the Act, held as follows: 16. Under sub-section (1) of section 281B of the Act thus, where during the pendency of any proceedings for assessment or reassessment, the assessing officer is of the opinion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to, is not a good enough reason and is rejected by this Court. If the above reason were accepted then in all cases of high demands, provisional attachment would become the norm. I am unable to accept the logic, and therefore, the attachment order is quashed and set aside. 10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty given to the petitioner to file an appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within a period of 30 days from date. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in respect to the stay petition forthwith. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also request to hear out the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
