Court validates provisional attachment of bank accounts under Income Tax Act; no pre-decisional hearing required.

The court upheld the legality of the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It ruled that there is no statutory requirement for a pre-decisional hearing before passing the attachment order. The court validated the assessment proceedings, noting the significant variance between the assessed tax liability and the funds in the attached accounts. The writ petition was dismissed, allowing for the appeal process to proceed without appropriation of the attached funds until the appeal period ends or as directed by the appellate court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 281B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of pre-decisional hearing before passing the order under Section 281B.
3. Validity of the assessment proceedings and tax liability determined.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts Under Section 281B(1):
The petitioner, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, challenged the order of provisional attachment of its bank accounts passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow, dated 5.3.2014, under Section 281B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is a Multi-State Cooperative Society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-2012, the Assessing Officer questioned the creditworthiness, genuineness, and identity of the society's investors. Due to non-cooperation in furnishing requisite information, the Joint Commissioner sought approval for provisional attachment to protect the revenue's interest, which was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. Consequently, the bank accounts in various banks were attached.

2. Requirement of Pre-decisional Hearing Before Passing the Order Under Section 281B:
The petitioner argued that the attachment caused serious adverse consequences and relied on judgments suggesting that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. However, the court noted that Section 281B does not mandate pre-decisional hearing. Unlike other provisions such as Section 142(2A) and Section 269UD, which have been amended to include hearing requirements, Section 281B remains unchanged. The court emphasized that it is not the role of the judiciary to add provisions to the statute that the legislature has not included.

3. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings and Tax Liability Determined:
The assessment was completed during the pendency of the writ petition, determining a tax liability of Rs. 8,40,11,21,730. The court noted that the amount found in the attached bank accounts was only Rs. 22,89,70,019/-, a meager sum compared to the assessed liability. The court refrained from commenting on the material placed before the assessing authority as the final assessment is subject to appeal. The court found that the Assessing Officer had discharged his statutory obligations, and the provisional attachment order was validly approved by the Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the provisional attachment under Section 281B. It held that there is no statutory requirement for a pre-decisional hearing under Section 281B and validated the assessment proceedings. The attached amount shall not be appropriated against the demand until the appeal period expires or as per the appellate court's order, but the petitioner cannot withdraw the attached amount.

---