Provisional attachment under income tax law upheld where revenue risk and supporting material justified the Assessing Officer's satisfaction.

Section 281B permits provisional attachment during assessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer, with prior approval, considers it necessary to protect revenue. Judicial review is limited to cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, manifest arbitrariness, or non-application of mind; the court will not substitute its own view on the choice of assets. On the facts, the Department relied on search material, seizure of documents, investigation into allegedly inflated depreciation claims, and a likely substantial tax demand. The assessee could not insist that different properties be attached. The provisional attachment orders were therefore sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment orders under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were liable to be quashed for want of application of mind or absence of material; and whether the Assessing Officer's satisfaction in choosing the assets for attachment was open to interference in judicial review.

Analysis: Section 281B empowers provisional attachment during assessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer forms an opinion, with previous approval of the Commissioner, that such attachment is necessary to protect the interests of the Revenue. The provision is aimed at preventing the assessee from defeating recovery by dissipation of assets. The Court applied the settled limits of judicial review over administrative discretion, holding that interference is warranted only where the decision is illegal, irrational, or suffers from procedural impropriety, or where there is manifest arbitrariness or non-application of mind. The material placed before the Department showed search proceedings, seizure of documents, investigation into allegedly inflated depreciation claims, and a substantial likely tax demand. The choice of assets to be attached lay within the Assessing Officer's subjective satisfaction, and the assessee could not insist on attachment of different properties.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment orders were upheld and no ground for judicial interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned provisional attachments stood sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power to safeguard revenue.

---