Court releases bank accounts, maintains attachment on properties in tax case. Balancing revenue needs with petitioner's expenses.

The Court ordered the release of bank accounts from attachment but maintained attachment on immovable properties in a case challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's claim of no taxable income and need for funds for daily expenses and medical treatment was considered. The Court balanced revenue interests with the petitioner's financial needs, allowing access to bank funds while restricting property transactions until litigation concluded. Ultimately, the Court set aside the attachment on bank accounts but retained it on immovable properties to secure potential tax liabilities not exceeding property valuations.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment orders under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Immovable properties and bank accounts provisionally attached - Allegations of sizable interest and dividend income without filing tax returns - Undisclosed foreign bank accounts and high-value share transactions - Petitioner's claim of no taxable income, inherited funds, and need for funds for daily expenses and medical treatment - Department's argument of substantial tax liability and opposition to lifting attachment orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment orders passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attaching two immovable properties and bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Central Bank of India, and Yes Bank. The Department collected material during a search indicating sizable interest and dividend income of the petitioner, along with undisclosed foreign bank accounts and high-value share transactions totaling &8377; 266.26 Crores. The Department believed the petitioner had undisclosed income and foreign investments, justifying the attachment to safeguard revenue interests.

The petitioner contended that he had no taxable income, being a second account holder in U.K. bank accounts belonging to his son, and having inherited funds for investments. The petitioner argued that the value of the attached properties was sufficient to cover any potential tax liability, emphasizing his need for funds due to age and medical expenses. In response, the Department opposed lifting the attachment, citing substantial tax, interest, and penalty liabilities estimated at &8377; 23.28 Crores.

The Court considered the arguments and ordered the release of the bank accounts from attachment while maintaining the attachment on the immovable properties. The petitioner declared ownership of the properties and their unencumbered status, with valuations exceeding the likely tax liabilities. The Court balanced revenue interests with the petitioner's financial needs, allowing access to bank funds while restricting property transactions until the litigation concluded. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition, setting aside the attachment on bank accounts but retaining it on the immovable properties to secure potential tax liabilities not exceeding the property valuations.

---