Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Firoz Tin Factory and another. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition (Lodging) No.765 OF 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/03/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Sponsored

In the present case, as noted earlier, a provisional attachment has already been levied on 7 October 2011 under Section 281B by which the amount which was invested by the Assessee in mutual funds of SBI Mutual Funds was attached. The attachment was to the extent of Rs.36.54 Crores. That being the position evidently there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed under Section 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue.

Merely because the end of the financial year is approaching that cannot constitute a detriment to the Revenue. The detriment to the Revenue must be akin to a situation where the demand of the Revenue is liable to be defeated by an abuse of process by the Assessee. This is of course illustrative, for what is detrimental to the Revenue has to be determined on the facts of each case and an exhaustive catalogue of circumstances cannot be laid down. Consequently, we find that there is absolutely no justification for the Assessing Officer for making an order of demand directing the Assessee to deposit the entire demand by 16 March 2012. The action is highhanded and contrary to law.

The Revenue is adequately protected by the attachment which has been levied under Section 28 1B. Hence we dispose of the petition by directing that the provisional attachment under Section 281B shall continue to remain in force pending the disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In order to enable the Assessee to adopt the remedy which may be available in law against the final order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we also direct that the attachment shall continue to remain in force for a period of eight weeks after disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax  (Appeals). On the aforesaid condition, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for recovery of the demand, pending the appeal.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

WRIT PETITION (Lodging) NO.765 OF 2012

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031