TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds statutory appeal remedies, quashes bank account attachment under Section 281B.</h1> <h3>ABUL KALAM Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 (1) KOLKATA & ORS.</h3> ABUL KALAM Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 (1) KOLKATA & ORS. - [2021] 431 ITR 395 (Cal) Issues:1. Challenge to assessment order and demand notice under Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Legality of attachment notice issued under Section 281B of the Act.3. Interpretation of taxability under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Act.4. Validity of provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Act.Issue 1: Challenge to Assessment Order and Demand Notice:The petitioner challenged an assessment order and demand notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on December 29, 2019. The petitioner contended that the assessment process was flawed, with discrepancies in the taxability determination. The petitioner's representative cited various judgments to support the argument that certain amounts received should not be taxable under the Act. The High Court, after considering the arguments, declined to interfere at that stage, emphasizing that statutory appeal remedies should be pursued unless the order is completely without jurisdiction.Issue 2: Legality of Attachment Notice under Section 281B:The petitioner contested the provisional attachment of their bank account under Section 281B of the Act, arguing that it was unwarranted and contrary to established legal principles. The Revenue justified the attachment due to the substantial sum involved. However, the Court found the reasons provided for the attachment unsatisfactory, especially considering the debatable taxability issue. The Court referenced a Bombay High Court judgment to emphasize that such drastic powers must be exercised judiciously. Consequently, the Court quashed the attachment order.Issue 3: Interpretation of Taxability under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Act:The petitioner's counsel argued that the taxability of a specific amount should not fall under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Act based on various legal precedents. The Court noted the changing taxability categorization by the Income Tax officer and the lack of certainty in tax treatment. This uncertainty led the Court to question the validity of the provisional attachment, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and setting aside the attachment order.Issue 4: Validity of Provisional Attachment under Section 281B:The Court scrutinized the legality of the provisional attachment under Section 281B, emphasizing that such measures should be reserved for exceptional cases involving revenue protection or tax evasion. In this case, the Court found the taxability issue debatable and the reasons for attachment insufficient. Rejecting the Revenue's argument based on the amount involved, the Court quashed the attachment order, directing the petitioner to file an appeal and stay petition within 30 days.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the right to appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court instructed the authorities not to take coercive steps against the petitioner until the stay petition's disposal. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory appeal remedies and the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for justifiable reasons in exercising drastic powers like provisional attachment under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
