2014 (5) TMI 591 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner's Claims Dismissed; Bank Account Attachment Lifted

Soham Securities Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax OR His Suceessor Tooffic & 5

The court dismissed most of the petitioner's claims due to unresolved factual disputes and the lifting of the bank account attachment. It advised seeking ... Attachment of property – claim for interest and payment for damages for loss of business and reputation of the petitioner due to illegal attachment under section 226(3) and subsequently under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Held that:- The question of mala fide and the allegations of exercise of power irregularly or for ulterior motives, cannot be judged in the writ petition being highly disputed questions of fact. In order to grant prayers made by the assessee for awarding interest or cost, number of disputed questions of fact shall have to be gone into – assessee’s averments and allegations are very serious levelling allegations of personal mala fide – revenue contended that Shri Krishna Somani agreed to offer the amount lying in the bank account though in the name of the company for the recovery of tax due from him in his personal capacity in order to avoid unpleasant consequences arising out of coercive tax recovery – it is left open to the assessee to avail the remedy as may be available – Decided against the assessee. Issues:Petitioner seeking writs of certiorari, mandamus, and other orders to quash illegal bank account attachment, interim relief, stay on notice implementation, interest payment, damages for loss of business, and cost of petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including quashing an illegal bank account attachment order and claiming interest, damages, and costs. However, as the bank account attachment was lifted during the petition's pendency, the prayers related to it became irrelevant. The only surviving claim was for interest on the frozen amount and damages.2. The petitioner alleged the bank account was unlawfully frozen, while respondent no. 6, accused of malice, argued the attachment was lawful. The court found the issue of malice and irregular exercise of power too disputed to decide in a writ petition. Both parties presented conflicting arguments and evidence, making it challenging to determine the truth.3. The court noted the seriousness of the petitioner's allegations against respondent no. 6 but refrained from delving into the disputed facts. The respondent claimed the petitioner agreed to use the company's funds to settle personal tax liabilities, aiming to avoid coercive tax recovery measures. Given the conflicting narratives, the court decided not to resolve these factual disputes in the writ petition.4. The court declined to adjudicate on the disputed issues, advising the petitioner to seek alternative legal remedies. It emphasized that all arguments remained open for future proceedings. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue other available legal avenues while maintaining neutrality on the contentious matters.In summary, the court dismissed most of the petitioner's claims due to unresolved factual disputes and the lifting of the bank account attachment. It advised the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies and kept all contentions open for future proceedings. The judgment focused on the complexity of the case and the inability to resolve disputed facts in a writ petition, highlighting the need for a more detailed examination in a different legal context.