9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to certain deposits made during the relevant financial year. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to notice issued under Section 142(1). A pre-assessment show cause notice was also issued on 27.08.2019, to which also there was no response - thus order of assessment has come to be passed under Section 144 records total non-co-operation on the part of the petitioner during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner has admittedly challenged the same by way of first appeal, which is pending disposal. No application for stay has been placed before this Court though the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition mentions the stay application filed before the Income Tax Officer. In such circumstances, I see no illegality in the coe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mil Nadu. The challenge is a notice issued under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). According to the petitioner, the notice is patently illegal insofar as a copy of the same has not been served upon the petitioner as required in terms of Section 226 itself. Moreover, the entire balance in the account as on that date, which is an amount of ₹ 2,86,86,000/- has been appropriated and the Manager of the Kmbakonam Central Cooperative Bank Limited has been prevailed upon to foreclose fixed deposits prior to the date of maturity and hand over those receipts as well. The petitioner would thus pray that there be a direction for refund of the entire amount to its bank account. 3. The brief facts are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation filed before the Income Tax Officer. In such circumstances, I see no illegality in the coercive recovery proceedings that have been initiated, save, of course, that the Section 226 notice ought to have been issued on the petitioner simultaneous with service upon the bank manager. This has admittedly not been done. However, this is not fatal to the proceedings, seeing as the petitioner is aware of the coercive recovery proceedings initiated as early as in March, 2020, but has chosen to do nothing till date. 6. The prayer sought for by the petitioner, for a certiorarified mandamus quashing 226(3) notice, is thus not liable to be granted. Had an application for stay been filed, one could have considered the disposal of that applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
