9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th 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 personally unable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Assessing Officer ('AO') of the Petitioner's son Sh. Ravi Chopra. 2.3. Learned counsel states that the notice is with respect to the PAN of Sh. Ravi Chopra, and the Petitioner herein has no concern with the said notice. Thus, the said notice cannot operate with respect to the FDRs of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, 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 an abundant caution to facilitate encashment in case of any unforeseen event appears plausible. 6.3. We also note that the notice dated 27th December, 2019, issued by the AO of Sh. Ravi Chopra and addressed to the Bank contains a specific direction for attachment of the bank accounts held by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds 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 made any submission which would disentitle the Petitioner to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 7. We, therefore, hold that the attachment order dated 27th December, 2019, does not operate against the FDRs of the Petitioner held with the Bank and direct the Bank to permit the Petitioner to enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
