Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a notice issued under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could be enforced against an unutilised overdraft limit maintained by the assessee with a bank, and whether the bank in such a case could be treated as a person from whom money was due or who held money for or on account of the assessee.
Analysis: Section 46(5A) authorises recovery only from a person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee, or who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee. The provision is analogous to garnishee attachment and presupposes the existence of a debt or identifiable money belonging to the assessee. A bank maintaining an overdraft facility for a customer who remains continuously in debit is not a debtor to the customer merely because a credit limit exists. Nor does the bank, in such circumstances, hold money for or on account of the customer. The section cannot be stretched into a device for freezing the credit limit itself and compelling payment to the Department of the difference between the overdraft limit and the amount drawn.
Conclusion: The impugned notice and the consequential direction were beyond the scope of section 46(5A) and were quashed, but the Department was left free to recover the arrears by lawful means.