PURNIMA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner, an Assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), has challenged the attachment notices under Section 226(3) of the Act dated February 10, 2010 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Hooghly, Respondent No. 2 (for short "the said Respondent ") and has prayed for refund of Rs. 1,66,000 appropriated by the said Respondent from the current account No. 659 maintained by M/s. P.D. Enterprises with the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandannagar Branch, Respondent No. 4. Incidentally, the pro forma Respondent No. 8 is a partnership firm in which the Petitioner is a partner.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudication are that for the assessment year 2007-08 the Petitioner had filed her income-tax return. The return was scrutinized. On December 24, 2009 assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the said Respondent. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), XXXVI, Kolkata, Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, on February 11, 2010 the Petitioner filed an application for stay before the said Respondent in respect of the demand for the said assessment year. On February 15, 2010, the Petitioner was served with four notices of attachment dated February 10, 2010 in respect of the demand for the said assessment year. Thereafter, on February 16, 2010 the Petitioner received a letter dated February 12, 2010 issued by Respondent No. 4 whereby she was informed that a sum of Rs. 1,66,000 was debited from the current account No. 659 and has been paid to the Income-tax Department in accordance with the orders of attachment. According to the Petitioner, the action of the said Respondent in attaching the bank account of a partnership firm by reason of the fact that the Petitioner is a partner thereof, is illegal and arbitrary. Realizing a part of the demand raised by the authority without disposing of the application for stay does not have the sanction of law. Moreover, the notices of attachment which were in stereotyped format did not reflect whether the said Respondent had taken into consideration the factum of pendency of the appeal. Since no notice preceding attachment was issued, the entire action is bad in law.

(3.) The matter was moved upon notice on February 25, 2010 when after hearing the learned advocates for the parties directions were issued for filing of affidavits and interim order was passed in terms of prayer (g) of the writ petition. It was observed that pendency of the writ petition would not prevent Respondent No. 3 from hearing out the appeal in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions affidavits have been filed and are on record.