Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Narayan Realty Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 June, 2016

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.J. Shastri

                 C/SCA/7226/2016                                            ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7226 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                       NARAYAN REALTY LTD....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
               DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS. BHOOMI THAKORE
         and MR. JAIMIN DAVE for MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the
         Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
                            Date : 29/06/2016

                                    ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The   petitioner   has   challenged   orders   dated  04.09.2015 and 22.02.2016, at Annexure:A colly.  Brief  facts are as under.

2. Petitioner   is   the   company   registered   under   the  Companies   Act   and   is   engaged   in   the   business   of  reality   development.     Search   action   took   place   in  connection   of   the   petitioner   between   13.11.2014   to  16.11.2014 resulting into notice under section 153A of  the   Income   Tax   Act,   1961   ('the   Act'   for   short)   on  30.06.2015.  During the search and the return that the  Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER petitioner   filed   in   response   to   the   notice,   the  petitioner   had   disclosed   certain   additional   income.  In this background, the respondent Deputy Commissioner  of   Income­tax,   passed   an   order   on   04.09.2015,  attaching   various   immovable   properties   of   the  petitioner mentioned in the said order in exercise of  powers   under   section   281B   of   the   Act.     This   order  would   have   life   of   six   months.     He   therefore,   upon  completion   of   such   period,   passed   a   fresh   order   on  22.02.2016, giving description of the properties and  continuing   the   attachment   upto   28.08.2016.   These  orders, the petitioner has challenged in the present  petition on various grounds.

3. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner  vehemently contended that the respondent has exercised  powers   under   section   281B   of   the   Act   without   the  conditions precedent for exercise of such powers being  satisfied.  There is nothing on record to suggest that  the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that for the  purpose of protecting the interest of the revenue, it  is   necessary   to   attach   the   properties   of   the  petitioner company.  There is no such averment in the  impugned order,   no material to enable the Assessing  Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER Officer to come to such a conclusion. In any case, the  total   jantri   value   of   different   immovable   assets   of  the   company   being   attached   far   exceeded   any   tax  liability which may arise at the end of the assessment  proceedings.   Despite such facts were brought to the  notice of the authority, the respondent failed to lift  the order of attachment.  Many of the properties were  such where either the petitioner had already executed  sale   deeds   before  the   attachment  was   imposed  or  had  entered into agreement to sale the same.   The effect  of the orders of the attachment was thus to bring the  business activities of the petitioner to a standstill.  Counsel   submitted   that   the   department   seeks   to   take  the   entire   estimated   on­money   receipts   of   the  petitioner by way of its net profit ignoring the fact  that only the profit element embalmed in such receipts  which can be subjected to tax. 

4. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt for  the   department   opposed   the   petition   contending   that  during   search   operation,   several   statements   were  recorded.     Incriminating   material   was   collected,  prima­facie,   showing   on­money   receipts   by   the  assessee.   He submitted that all issues can be gone  Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER into at the time of framing of the assessment for the  block   period.     However,   at   this   stage,   it   can   be  estimated   that   the   additions   could   be   in   excess   of  Rs.60.39 crores.   It would be too premature to even  estimate such additions.  However, it cannot be denied  that the petitioner could be visited with sizable tax  demand   with   interest   and   penalties.   To   protect   the  interest   of   the   revenue,   therefore,   the   respondent  authority had passed the orders in exercise of powers  under section 281B of the Act.  He submitted that the  petitioner had not also cooperated with the assessment  proceedings.  

5. Since   the   assessment   pursuant   to   the   search  operations is pending, we would not comment on rival  claims of the possible additions that may be made in  the   total   income   of   the  assessee.   However,   going   by  the   rough   formula   presented   by   the   revenue   and   in  order   to   strike   a   balance   between   protecting   the  interest of the revenue and at the same time allowing  the   petitioner   to   carry   on   its   normal   business,   we  propose to provide for a formula. Even if the figure  of addition of Rs.60 and odd crores is taken for the  purpose   of   roughly   estimating   the   possible   tax  Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER liability,   the   same   cannot   exceed   Rs.25   crores,   at  least of principal tax.  

6. We have noted the contention of the counsel for  the petitioner that number of immovable properties of  the   petitioner   are   unencumbered   and   free   from   any  charge.     Jantri   value   of   such   properties   runs   into  several   hundred   crores   of   rupees.     However,   the  petitioner   company   may   be   in   the   process   of  developing,   constructing   upon   or   selling   such  properties as part of its business activities.  

7. In view of such facts, the orders of attachment  are   directed   to   be   lifted   upon   fulfillment   of  following conditions:

I. The   petitioner   shall   keep   immovable  properties unencumbered, not creating any charge  whose   jantri   value   together   shall   not   be   less  than   Rs.25   crores   till   the   assessments   pursuant  to notice under section 153A are completed.  II. The   petitioner   shall   give   a   list   of   such  properties to the department latest by 05.07.2016  alongwith   which,   the   petitioner   shall   indicate  the   current   jantry   rate   with   supporting  Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER documents.     The   petitioner   shall   also   file   an  affidavit   stating   that   such   properties   are   free  from   any   encumbrance   and   that   the   petitioner  shall   not   create   any   charge   on   such   properties  till the assessments are completed.   III. As   soon   as   this   is   done,   the   order   of  attachment   qua   rest   of   the   properties   shall  automatically stand lifted.   In other words, the  petitioner would be free to deal with the rest of  the properties.  
IV. Jayantibhai   Dalsukhbhai   Panchal,   the  director of the petitioner company, who has sworn  this   petition,   shall   file   an   undertaking   before  this   Court   latest   by   05.07.2016   declaring   that  whatever   the   tax   with   interest   and   penalty  liabilities are ultimately crystallized, company  shall pay to the department.  
 

8. Petition disposed of accordingly.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.J. SHASTRI, J.) Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016 C/SCA/7226/2016 ORDER ANKIT Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sat Jul 02 02:03:36 IST 2016