Anita Rani Vs ITO (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order dated 09.08.2002 by which the respondent attached a bank account to recover tax dues owed by her husband. The Revenue had assessed a tax liability of Rs.1,18,615 against the partnership firm M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram, Sangrur. The dues could not be recovered from the firm. Krishan Kumar, the petitioner’s husband, had been a partner in the firm. Due to non-recovery of the outstanding amount from the firm and its partners, the respondent issued a notice dated 09.08.2002 to the bank stating that the amount was recoverable from Krishan Kumar as the son and legal heir of Sham Lal and as a partner of the firm. The bank account, which had a credit balance of Rs.60,002, was a joint account of the petitioner and her husband, which the respondent attached.
The petitioner argued that the funds in the bank account came from rental income and had no connection with the liabilities of the firm. She contended that there was nothing on record to show that she had inherited property from any partner of the firm. She asserted that the respondent could attach only such property that represented the estate inherited from the partners of the defaulting firm.
