Case Law Details
Duo Meadows (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner has challenged the provisional attachment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 281B as well as the Assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) and the consequential demand notice dated 28.12.2018 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short).
2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of development of immovable properties, formation of layouts, sale of the sites/plots thereof. The petitioner was subjected to assessment under Section 143(3)of the Act relating to the assessment year 2016- 17. Before passing of the assessment order on 28.12.2018, an order dated 27.12.2018 was passed under Section 281B of the Act attaching the properties belonging to the assessee in order to protect the interest of the revenue during the assessment proceedings.
3. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the order under Section 281B of the Act is a non- speaking order and the same is void ab initio. As regards the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the details of the development expenses and other direct expenses were furnished with the addresses and the PAN numbers of the persons to whom the payments were made. Ignoring the same, the Assessing Officer has observed that no addresses and PAN numbers have been furnished by the assessee except the names in support of the development expenses and direct expenses. The same discloses the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It is contended that immediately after passing of the order under Section 281B of the Act on 27.12.2018, the next day e., on 28.12.2018 the assessment order has been passed. Thus, it is contended that the orders impugned herein being violative of the fundamental principles of law deserve to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue would submit that the factual aspects now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the list with addresses and PAN numbers with names found in the compromise account prima-facie does not tally and this aspect requires to be considered by the appellate authority. Hence, the petitioner may be relegated to the appellate forum. It is further submitted that the order passed under Section 281B of the Act has a short span of life of six months and pursuant to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, extension of the said order is ordinarily not contemplated. Hence, the challenge made to the said order does not survive for consideration.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sir, is there any judgement of Supreme Court in this regard or any other judgement where quashed the attactment of section 281B, if so, kindly inform at advocatehkr@gmail.com