KAPIL DEV Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by two notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, which in effect, amounts to garnishee; they were issued on 03.11.2011 and 08.12.2011. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner's brother, one Raj Kumar was assessed to tax for 1996-97 and a demand in the sum of Rs. 24.74 lakhs was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued to the said assessee. While the matter stood thus, the two impugned notices were issued to the petitioner in respect of deposits in accounts held by him in Canara Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Central Bank of India and the Union Bank of India. This had the effect of attachment of his accounts. THE petitioner claims that the impugned notices are illegal and contrary to law. It was urged that the income tax authorities initially were of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be treated as legal representative of his brother Raj Kumar and had, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 159. Reliance is placed upon the letters dated 06.02.2012 and 14.02.2012. It is stated that subsequently the income tax authorities withdrew the letter and later even sought to resile from the withdrawal letter. Ultimately, the respondent/income tax authorities, despite the petitioner's persuasion, continued with the garnishee notices/orders dated 03.11.2011 and 08.12.2011.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in support of the petition. It is submitted that by no stretch of the imagination could the respondent treat the income earned over the years by the petitioner ­ which had itself been subjected to tax and thereafter being kept in Fixed Deposits as belonging to or owed to his brother, so as to attract provisions of Section 226 (3).