SATYABIR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the provisional attachment order annexure P. 8, dt. 28th Oct., 1998, issued by the ITO, Ward No. 8, Faridabad (respondent No. 3), under S. 281B of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), r/w rr. 20, 22 and 26 of the Second Schedule to the Act and also to direct the respondents to release the fixed deposits of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 9 marlas belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the State Government vide notification dt. 6th May, 1996, issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In pursuance of the award dt. 30th April, 1998, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, he was paid compensation amounting to Rs. 1,35,070 vide cheque No. 0320852, dt. 8th May, 1998. For the purpose of availing of exemption from capital gains under S. 54B of the Act, the petitioner entered into various agreements for purchasing of agricultural land out of the compensation received by him. He filed returns for the asst. yrs. 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 vide annexures P. 16 and P. 17. After about five months of receiving the amount of compensation, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order of provisional attachment on the basis of the action initiated under S. 148 of the Act against another assessee, i.e., Tek Ram, HUF.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that by initiating action against the assessee -Tek Ram, HUF, respondent No. 3 did not acquire jurisdiction to attach his property under S. 281B of the Act simply because he is the son of Tek Ram and a part of the compensation received by Tek Ram, HUF was deposited in the form of FDRs and in SB account in his name.