Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (8) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceipt of the notice. The notice gave the following details: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name Date Recovery certificate Amounts number -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rs. M. Habibullah 13-3-73 43, 44 45 30,312 5-3-73 43, 44 45 2,57,859 -------------------- 2,88,171 Barkat Habib 12-3-74 702/B ------------------- --------------------- 13-3-73 63-AW 5,58,591 5-3-73 63/701/B 5,024 22,671 ------------------ 5,86,286 ----------------- Shaukat Habib 13-3-73 725/S/62/AW 8,2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aranasi. At that time, namely, in or about September, 1976, Habibullah, Shaukat Habib and Barkat Habib, respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8, were under detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. They remained in detention from September 7, 1975, to March 25, 1977. The petitioner-company states that it remained unaware of the attachment and of the remitting of the moneys belonging to it to the TRO, Varanasi. When it came to know of it, it moved heaven and hell. It went from pillar to post but without any response or result. It met the ITO, the TRO and the Commissioner but with no result. It also went to the CBDT but evoked no response. It has now come to this court. In the counter-affidavit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat till now there is no finding by any authority that it is not a registered company. Learned counsel for the department invited our attention to sub-s. (3) of s. 226 of the I.T. Act, 1961, to justify the notice of attachment in question. This provision says that: "The Income-tax Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person ... who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the Income-tax Officer ... so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of the arrears." Even if these provisions were to apply, in the present case, admittedly no notice was issued or served on the petitioner-company it was argued that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates