Dhanarajan Narayansamy Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
In a move aimed at alleviating hardship, the Madras High Court has permitted Dhanarajan Narayansamy, a senior citizen, to withdraw up to ₹2 lakh monthly from his attached pension account. The court’s interim order comes as Narayansamy faces recovery proceedings for an alleged tax liability of over ₹1 crore, leading to the attachment of his bank account. The ruling, delivered in Dhanarajan Narayansamy Vs ITO, provides temporary relief while his appeal against the attachment order is pending before the Appellate Authority.
Narayansamy had initially sought the quashing of the Income Tax Officer’s attachment order dated January 31, 2025. However, during the hearing, his counsel narrowed the request, emphasizing the severe hardship faced by the senior citizen due to the complete attachment of his pension account, which prevented him from meeting daily expenses. He requested that his appeal be expedited and that he be allowed to withdraw his monthly pension up to ₹2 lakh until the appeal’s disposal. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposed this, citing the substantial tax amount of ₹1,05,97,707/- liable to be paid by the petitioner.
Considering the petitioner’s status as a senior citizen and the undue hardship caused by the attachment of his designated pension account, the High Court decided to grant partial relief. The court directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of Narayansamy’s appeal, filed on May 31, 2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. Crucially, the attachment order passed by the Income Tax Officer was partially lifted. Narayansamy is now permitted to withdraw a maximum sum of ₹2 lakh, representing his monthly pension, which will be credited to his account. Additionally, the court directed the bank to allow withdrawal of pension amounts that had accumulated in the account after the attachment order was issued. The court explicitly clarified that the petitioner is only entitled to withdraw pension amounts – both accumulated and future monthly credits – and no other funds from the attached account. The attachment order remains in effect for all other aspects until the appeal is decided. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing revenue recovery with humanitarian considerations, especially for vulnerable sections of society.
