Court dismisses writ petition challenging attachment order by Income Tax Department due to improper party; petitioner linked to cash seizure incident during election surveillance.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the attachment order by the Income Tax Department, citing improper party arrayed as respondent. The petitioner, linked to a cash seizure incident during election surveillance, faced proceedings under PBPT Act and IT Act. Despite financial constraints and family exigencies, the court declined to intervene, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies and seek interim protection through the appellate authorities under the IT Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Cash seizure during election surveillance
2. Detention of individual with cash
3. Proceedings under PBPT Act and IT Act
4. Order of assessment under IT Act
5. Order under PBPT Act
6. Impugned order of attachment by Income Tax Department
7. Proper party not arrayed as respondent
8. Maintainability of writ petition
9. Impleadment of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
10. Interim protection and statutory remedy of appeal
11. Financial constraints and family exigencies
12. Dismissal of writ petition with liberty for further action

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, was linked to a cash seizure incident during election surveillance in 2019.
2. Cash amounting to Rs.3,47,51,100/- was found in a TNSTC bus, and an individual holding the cash identified as a conductor was detained.
3. Proceedings were initiated under the Prohibition of Benami Properties Transactions Act, 1988, and the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. An order of assessment under the IT Act was passed on 28.09.2021, with a pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
5. An order under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act was passed on 16.02.2022, with the petitioner appealing before the Tribunal under the PBPT Act.
6. The Income Tax Department issued an order attaching the petitioner's salary for appropriation against the assessed income of Rs. 3.74 crores.
7. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle No.3 (4), Chennai, while the petitioner erroneously named a different authority as the respondent.
8. The writ petition was deemed not maintainable due to improper parties being arrayed, but the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 3(4), Chennai was impleaded as a respondent.
9. The court declined to intervene and left the impugned order of attachment undisturbed, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek interim protection from the assessing or appellate authorities under the IT Act.
10. The petitioner's financial constraints and family exigencies, including caring for a special child, were highlighted.
11. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief through the statutory remedy of appeal and necessary orders for interim protection.

---