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

2022 (10) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no dispute that the said attachment order is not intended to operate against the Petitioner's assets. Whereas the notice dated 27th December, 2019, directed the Bank to remit all amounts standing to the name Sh. Ravi Chopra to his AO, admittedly, the Bank had not remitted the amounts of the FDR standing in the name of the Petitioner herein to the AO, as possibly even the Bank does not consider the said FDRs as the asset of Sh. Ravi Chopra. Bank out of abundant caution has held back on the Petitioner's FDRs and this further borne out from the letter dated 31stMarch, 2020, issued by the Bank to the AO seeking clarification with respect to the application of the attachment order to the Petitioner's FDRs. AO did not respond to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der dated 27th December, 2019, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( the Act ) with respect to the fixed deposits held by the Petitioner herein with the Respondent no.1, the Nainital Bank Ltd. ( Bank ). 2. The learned Counsel states that the Petitioner herein used her personal savings for opening fixed deposits with the Bank. He states that the petitioner is an 88 years old senior citizen and suffers from various old age related ailments and due to her advanced age, she was advised by the banker to make her son Sh. Ravi Chopra as a second holder in these fixed deposits, on an either or survivor mode, so that the fixed deposits can be liquidated by the petitioner in case of an medical emergency even if she is personal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 19, issued under Section 143(3) of the Act with respect to AY 2017-18, passed in the case of the Petitioner accepting the income, which is inclusive of the income from the interest received by the Petitioner from the Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ). 2.2. Learned counsel states that on 22nd January, 2020, when the Petitioner approached the Bank for encashment of the fixed deposits the banker informed her that the Bank cannot permit encashment in view of the attachment order received from the Department. He states that the communication of the Department addressed to the Bank was initially not provided to the Petitioner. He states that the Petitioner was subsequently provided with the notice dated 27th December, 2019, issued by the Assessi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eparate occasions to enable the learned counsel for the Department to obtain instructions on the contentions raised in the petition. 6.1. The learned counsel for the Department has not disputed the contentions of the Petitioner as regards filing of income tax returns and the assessment order, wherein it is stated that the interest income earned from the FDR has been disclosed as her personal income and offered to tax. He has also not disputed her contention that the amounts standing in the FDRs exclusively belonging to the Petitioner to the exclusion of Sh. Ravi Chopra. 6.2. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner is an 88 year old senior citizen and her explanation that her son was joined as a second holder in the FDRs as a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... borne out from the letter dated 31stMarch, 2020, issued by the Bank to the AO seeking clarification with respect to the application of the attachment order to the Petitioner's FDRs. The AO did not respond to the said letter of the Bank seeking clarification, which shows apathy of the AO towards the plight of the Petitioner. 6.5. The Department has not shown any cause against the Petitioner. The counsel for the Bank has also clarified that the only reason for not allowing the Petitioner to encash her FDRs is due to the notice dated 27th December, 2019. The contentions of the Petitioner in the writ petition have remained undisputed. The counsel for the Department and the Bank have not disputed the contentions of the writ petition or m .....

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