Cash credit accounts cannot be attached under Section 226(3) recovery proceedings as no debtor-creditor relationship exists

The HC held that cash credit accounts cannot be attached under Section 226(3) recovery proceedings. The court determined that attachment requires an existing debtor-creditor relationship, which does not exist with cash credit facilities. A cash credit limit is merely a facility provided by banks for customers to utilize money, not money held by the bank on behalf of customers. The bank does not become a debtor by providing overdraft facilities. The court found the attachment orders passed by authorities exceeded their powers under Section 226(3) and were therefore quashed. The petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether accounts in the nature of Cash Credit Accounts can be attached under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Attachment of Cash Credit Accounts

The primary issue in this case was whether the accounts, specifically Cash Credit (CC) or Overdraft (OD) accounts, could be attached under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged the attachment of these accounts by the tax authorities, arguing that such accounts do not constitute a debtor-creditor relationship necessary for attachment under the said section.

The court examined Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer to issue a notice to any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee, or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, requiring them to pay the amount due by the assessee. This provision is akin to garnishee proceedings, which enable a creditor to reach the money due to a debtor from a third party.

The court referred to several precedents to determine whether a Cash Credit account could be considered as money due to the assessee. In the case of K.M. Adam vs. The Income Tax Officer, the Madras High Court held that when a bank provides an overdraft facility and the customer is always in debit, the bank is not a debtor to the customer and does not hold any money on behalf of the customer. Thus, Section 226(3) could not be invoked to attach such accounts.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Sangram Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and the Calcutta High Court in Jugal Kishore Das vs. Union of India reiterated that Cash Credit accounts, being overdraft facilities, do not render the bank a debtor to the customer, and therefore, cannot be attached under Section 226(3).

The Gujarat High Court in Kaneria Granitio Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner IT also held that unless a debtor-creditor relationship exists, the attachment of Cash Credit accounts under Section 226(3) is not permissible. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADG, GST Intelligence and Manish Scrap Traders vs. Principal Comm. followed the same reasoning.

Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the mere provision of an overdraft facility does not make the bank a debtor to its customers. The Cash Credit limit is a facility provided by the bank, and if utilized, attracts interest. Therefore, such accounts cannot be attached under Section 226(3) of the Act.

The court found the impugned orders of attachment passed by the authorities to be beyond the powers conferred under Section 226(3) of the Act, and thus, quashed and set aside the communications dated 08.07.2024 and 10.07.2024 issued by respondent No. 1 to respondents No. 2 and 3. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.

---