Petitioner to Submit Valuation Report for Property Request within One Week

The court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed request with the valuation report of the Egmore property to the competent authority. If the valuation is satisfactory, the authority should revoke provisional attachments on other properties. The petitioner has one week to submit the request, and the authority has three weeks to make a decision. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs incurred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional attachment of property under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Calculation of tax liability and valuation of attached properties.
3. Justification and reasonableness of the provisional attachments.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Attachment of Property under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in these writ petitions is the provisional attachment made by the Income Tax Department under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This provision allows the Assessing Officer, with prior approval from higher authorities, to attach any property belonging to the assessee to protect the interests of the revenue during the pendency of assessment or reassessment proceedings. The provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after six months unless extended, but not exceeding two years in total.

2. Calculation of Tax Liability and Valuation of Attached Properties:
The petitioner, a private limited company, filed a return showing a loss for the assessment year 2011-2012. However, following a survey under Section 133A of the Act, the Income Tax Department impounded books of accounts and documents, leading to provisional attachment orders. The petitioner contended that the department erroneously calculated the built-up area of their property, resulting in a wrong assessment of profits and tax liability. The petitioner argued that the property at Door No.31/32, Commander-in-Chief Road, Egmore, Chennai, alone is sufficient to cover the tax liability, even if the department's calculation is correct.

3. Justification and Reasonableness of the Provisional Attachments:
The petitioner argued that the provisional attachments of debts and security deposits from third parties are arbitrary and unreasonable, given that the property at Egmore is sufficient to satisfy the tax liability. The department, on the other hand, justified the provisional attachments based on the findings of the survey and the probable tax liability of approximately Rs.6.70 Crores. The court noted that the provisional attachment should be commensurate with the claim of the department and should avoid arbitrariness. The court held that if the petitioner can establish the valuation of the Egmore property as sufficient to cover the tax liability, the department should consider releasing the provisional attachments on other properties.

Conclusion:
The court directed the petitioner to make a detailed request to the competent authority, enclosing the valuation report of the Egmore property. The competent authority is to consider the request on merits and, if satisfied with the valuation, revoke the provisional attachments on other properties. The petitioner was given one week to submit the request, and the authority was given three weeks to pass appropriate orders. The writ petitions were disposed of in these terms, with no costs.

---