VLS FINANCE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three orders of attachment issued under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short,the Act) are subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The said orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Circle-11 (in short DyCI), purportedly to protect the interest of revenue and after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), (in short the Commissioner). Total amount covered by the three orders aggregates to Rs.23.52 crores and were in respect of shares of and security deposit 'with M/s Sunair Hotels Ltd, and balance due from M/S Television (Eighteen) India Ltd.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, petitioner's ease is as follows: Petitioner company was incorporated in January, 1986 with the name of Vardhman Leasing and Services Ltd. The name was changed to VLS Finance Ltd on 8-9-1994. Petitioner, inter-alia, carries on the business of leasing, hire purchase, providing loan and finance to other corporate entities including portfolio management, corporate consultancy and capital market operations. It also carries on business of hire-purchase and leasing in respect of industrial and office equipments including boilers, cylinders, cinematographic, films, vehicles etc. Some of these items are eligible to normal as well as high rate of depreciation under the Income-tax laws.In nor'mal course of itsbusiness it has also entered into sale-cum-lease back transactions. Some of the lease prohotes relating to these transactions were at times discounted to assure availability of finance

(3.) On 22 June, 1998, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried but in petitioner's office as well as the residential premises of its Directors. Simultaneously, survey operations at Mumbai, Madras and Kanpur Offices were carried out. In course of search various, documents, books of accounts arid cash of Rs.8.00 lakhs was seized.Photo copies of various lease files, mainly thos.pertaining to assets on which 100% depreciation was claimed and allowed for assessment years 1995-96 and, 1996-97 were also taken. Placing reliance on certain statements recorded and on the basis of search and investigation, department came to a prima facie conclusion that lease transactions where 100% depreciation had been allowed was so done erroneously