Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The two petitioners herein, viz., Nimitya Properties Ltd. and Nimitya Promoters Ltd., who belong to the same group, have filed two petitions each. In the first two petitions filed by these petitioners, the challenge is laid to the orders dated 06.02.2009 passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), provisionally attaching their properties. Other two petitions by each of them came to be filed because of the orders dated 03.08.2009 passed under Section 281B of the Act extending the time of attachment of the properties upto 31.07.2010. Thus, these subsequent orders are passed as a continuation/extension of the first order. The circumstances under which the attachment orders in respect of properties belonging to these two petitioners have been passed are identical. For these reasons, writ petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, issues raised in all these writ petitions are dealt with. For the sake of brevity, we shall take not of the facts of Writ Petition (C) No.8436/2009.

6. The petitioners also make a grievance that documents seized on 06.11.2008 had not been confronted and no question had been asked from them and no notice under Section 153A or 153C had been issued. The petitioners have also referred to the instructions of Central Board of Direct Taxes issued as Addendum dated 05.11.2004 in which it is recommended that the provisions of Section 281B should be resorted to only in cases where there is a reasonable likelihood of the recovery becoming difficult due to inadequacy of assets and where there are sufficient assets to cover the demand, the provisions of Section 281B should not be resorted to, except under exceptional circumstances warranting the same.

8. Insofar as orders dated 03.08.2009 extending this attachment is concerned, his submission was that this order was passed by the AO who was not the Competent Authority, as such an extension order could be passed only by the Commissioner. Furthermore, even while passing the extension order, the Assessee was not confronted with seized documents. He also referred to and relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh (HUF) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr. [156 ITR 480] wherein the Court held that notices issued for provisional attachments of fixed deposit under Section 281B were effective only for a period of six months and this period could be extended by the CIT only in exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) of Section 281B of the Act and for want of material on the record to show that the ITO had formed an opinion on the basis of some material that it was necessary to attach the property in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, notices in provisionally attachment were unsustainable. The Court held as under:

12. The ambit and scope of word "proceeding" is expanded by this Explanation to include not only those proceedings, which are pending on the date of attachment of the property, when the search is authorized under Section 132, but also proceedings which may have been completed on or before such date and includes all proceedings under this Act, which may be commenced after such date in respect of any year. No doubt, proceedings in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 stands abated because of the search. However, it is also a fact, which cannot be shyed away, that the proceedings for that assessment year will have to be initiated under Section 153A or 153C of the Act. Such proceedings, which are to be necessarily commenced as a result of the search, are to be treated as proceedings under this Act. By virtue of Explanation to Section 281B of the Act, these are to be treated as the proceedings within the meaning of sub-Section (1) of Section 281B of the Act.