Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. A bare perusal of the Section 281B would show that two conditions are necessary for invoking it. Firstly, the existence of 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Revenue it is necessary to provisionally attach any property belonging to the assessee; and secondly the previous approval of the Higher Authority concerned has been obtained before passing any order. Section 281B of the Act gives very wide power to the Assessing Officer enabling him to provisionally attach any property belonging to the assessee with the previous approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Revenue it is necessary to do so.

17. In Shiv Pal Singh v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 480, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there is no material on record to show that the Income Tax Officer had formed an opinion on the basis of some material and it was necessary to attach the property in order to protect the interest of the Revenue. The order Under Section 281B of the Act is unsustainable.

18. In Society for Integrated Development in Urban and Rural Areas v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (2001) 252 ITR 642 it has been held that attachment "for the purpose of protecting the interest of Revenue" in Section 281B of the Act is very wide in its meaning. For that reason as a safeguard, the prior approval of higher authority like Chief Commissioner etc. has been made as a pre condition. Further the orders of attachment must be in writing. It has been held thereafter that "there must be some material on record to show that the assessing authority had formed an opinion on the basis thereof that it was necessary to attach the property in order to protect the interest of the Revenue. Provisional attachment provided Under Section 281B of the Act is more like an attachment before the judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a liability on the property. However, the power conferred upon the assessing authority is very drastic, far reaching power and that the power has to be used sparingly and only on the substantive weighty grounds and reasons. One thing is clear that this power should be exercised by assessing officer only if there is reasonable apprehension "that the assessee may default the ultimate collection of the demand i.e. likely to be raised on completion of the assessment, it should, therefore, be exercised with extreme care and caution. It should not be exercised unless there is sufficient and relevant material on record to justify the satisfaction that the assessee is about to dispose of the whole or any part of the property with a view to thwarting the ultimate collection of the demand. Moreover, the attachment should be made of the properties and to the extent it is required to be achieved the above object."

20. In view of above discussion, we find that the impugned order passed Under Section 281B of the Act provisionally attaching the accounts of the petitioner company is wholly unwarranted and arbitrary. Learned Standing counsel for the Department could not show us any material either from the counter affidavit or from the supplementary affidavits to justify the action of the assessing authority Under Section 281B of the Act. Only this much was submitted by him that certain enquiries with regard to the nature and source of gifts in favour of the petitioner No. 2 is to be enquired into. This is the only ground which was stated in the counter affidavit and was urged by the learned Standing Counsel. In our opinion this ground is wholly insufficient to invoke Section 281B of the Act, the reason is simple. In every case where the assessment has to take place it is bounden duty of the assessing officer to make such enquiries as are necessary to complete the assessment apart from the above the petitioner company is newly born assessee on the file of the Income Tax Department as it was incorporated only on December 9, 2001 and indisputably it filed returns of income up to the assessment year 2003-04, which was finalized by the department There is no history of the petitioner company to show that on any occasion earlier it failed to discharge its liability. Apart from the above as has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gandhi Trading v. ACIT (1999) 239 ITR 337 (supra) that the attachment of the bank accounts is the last resort. The department if it is of the opinion that the assessee is likely to dispose of its property to thwart the payment of income tax dues, the department should provisionally attach the immovable property of such assessee first. Resort to blanket attachment of the entire bank accounts of an assessee has serious consequence on its rights to carry on the business. The action of the department in such circumstances should not give an impression to any body that it has indulged in any manner to hamper the business activities of the assessee. Power has been conferred under the said Section to protect the interest of the Revenue. Only so much asset or amount which would satisfy the future demand should be provisionally attached Under Section 281B of the Act, leaving other assets including the amount standing in the bank account to enable the assessee to carry on the business. The passing of the impugned order in the present case, we are of the opinion amounts stopping the business activities of the petitioner, which instead of advancing the purpose of Section 281B of the Act frustrates the interest of the Revenue.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given by the Commissioner of Income Tax before extending the period by six months up to 21st December, 2005 and a copy of the order has not been supplied to it nor the reasons have been disclosed. The proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 281B provides that the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director General and the Director, may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period by such further period/periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years. It was expected from the department while filing supplementary counter affidavit to annex reasons which were recorded by the Commissioner of the Income Tax for granting extension of period. The department in its counter affidavit filed in reply to the supplementary affidavit has annexed the letter of the Income Tax Officer, informing that Commissioner of Income Tax has been pleased to extend the provisional attachment up to 21st December, 2005. It is not sufficient. The department was required to place on record before the Court the reasons recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax for granting approval for extension of the order passed Under Section 281B of the Act. The disclosure of reasons recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax would have thrown some light on the controversy i.e. it is a case of gossip or hearsay or something more than that. An adverse inference should be drawn against the department for withholding the reasons, if any, recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax.