Manjulaben Mafatlal Shah Vs Tax Recovery Officer-3 (Bombay High Court)
The writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 27 May 2024 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tax Recovery Officer. Through the impugned notice, the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda was directed to transfer the money lying in the petitioner’s bank account to the Income Tax Department, effectively attaching the petitioner’s bank account.
The petitioner contended that although she was the wife of a Director of Shri Ram Tubes Private Limited, she had no connection with the company. She stated that she was neither a director, shareholder, nor employee of the company and had never held any such position. The bank account that was attached stood solely in her name. Based on these facts, the petitioner argued that the Income Tax Department had no authority or jurisdiction to attach her personal bank account for the company’s tax liability.
The factual position presented by the petitioner was not disputed by the counsel appearing for the Revenue. It was not the case of the Income Tax Department that the petitioner had ever been a director of Shri Ram Tubes Private Limited or that any income tax liability had arisen against her personally.
