TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Quashes Attachment Order, Directs Release of Funds</h1> <h3>Satyabir Singh Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others</h3> Satyabir Singh Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others - [2001] 248 ITR 785, 167 CTR 439, 117 TAXMANN 22 Issues:1. Challenge to provisional attachment order under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to attach property of the petitioner.3. Interpretation of section 281B in relation to protecting the interests of Revenue.4. Validity of the attachment order concerning FDRs and SB accounts of the petitioner.5. Compliance with legal procedures in passing the attachment order.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash a provisional attachment order issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and requested the release of fixed deposits. The order was based on an action against another assessee, leading to a challenge on jurisdictional grounds.2. The court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to attach the petitioner's property, which was part of compensation received by another individual. The petitioner argued that the attachment was invalid as it did not pertain to the assessee against whom the action was initiated.3. Section 281B allows provisional attachment of property belonging to the assessee for protecting Revenue's interests. The court analyzed the provisions and emphasized that such orders can only be passed concerning the property of the assessee and not any other person, highlighting the necessity to protect Revenue's interests within legal boundaries.4. The court scrutinized the validity of the attachment order concerning the FDRs and SB accounts of the petitioner. It was observed that the attached FDRs did not belong to the assessee against whom the action was taken, indicating a lack of jurisdiction in attaching the petitioner's property.5. Concluding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond jurisdiction, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the attachment order related to the petitioner's FDRs, and directed the release of the remaining amount within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring attachment orders are within the scope of the law to protect the interests of all parties involved.
TaxTMI 