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

1978 (11) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the Ordinance having been replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that she is the sole proprietor of the firm called Shreejee Diamond Industries and she carries on business at Mahidharpura, Zaveri Bazar, Surat. According to her, the petitioner's business is of diamond cutting and she earns livelihood from the income thereof. The petitioner, according to her, is an income-tax payer and has filed income-tax returns for the assessment year 1978-79, ending 31st March, 1978. According to the petitioner, she received a demand draft for Rs. 65,000. This demand draft was issued on December 20, 1977, and the same was negotiated by her with one Vijaykumar Champaklal Choksi of Surat on D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner, as urged at the stage of arguments before us, that provisional attachment must cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order made under sub-s. (1) of s. 281B but, under the proviso, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period of six months by such further period or periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years. Miss Shah on behalf of the petitioner urged before us at the time of hearing that, on the last day of the period of six months contemplated by s. 281 B(2) of the I.T. Act, the ITO, Circle II-D, has purported to pass another order directing the Agent of the State Bank of Ind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he orders passed thereon has been kept on the record of the case. Columns Nos. 1 to 7 do not deal with extension of the period of attachment under s. 281B of the I.T. Act. Column No. 8 is in these terms : " Whether this is fresh proposal or for extension of time. If it is for extension of time, No. and date of approval granted for the first time should be mentioned. " And against this column, the ITO has written : " The period of six months expires on 24-9-78. As the enquiry is still pending, extension may be granted for further six months. Approval under s. 281 B was granted by the CIT, Guj. II, by his letter No. Conf. Hq. 182/B-17/78 dt. 24-3-78." There is nothing else mentioned on the face of the order as to why the Commissioner in h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that the Commissioner decided that the period of attachment should be extended, yet there is no order by the Commissioner himself that the period of provisional attachment should be extended by a further period of six months. The only possible reason for extension of time which emerges from the documents before us is " as the enquiry is still pending ". The Commissioner does not appear to have found out why the inquiry was still pending and how long the inquiry was likely to take. The Commissioner does not seem to have applied his mind to any reasons for the extension of the period of attachment for a further period of six months beyond this ipse dixit of the ITO concerned that the inquiry was still pending. In our opinion, this is a mere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t not being valid, it is obvious that a mandamus must go to the State Bank of India, Surat branch, directing them to pay the amount of Rs. 56,000 to the newly opened savings bank account of the petitioner with the Bank of Baroda, Vania Sheri branch, Surat. However, in order to see that no complications may arise in future and in order to see that proper steps at all levels can be taken, the Bank of Baroda, Vania Sheri branch, Surat, is directed, not to allow the petitioner to operate as against this amount of Rs. 56,000 before January 1, 1979. Miss Shah, on behalf of the petitioner, undertakes that the petitioner will not operate upon the newly opened savings bank account so far as the amount of Rs. 56,000 is concerned before January 1, 197 .....

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