TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coordinate bench decision in the case of Purnima Das vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 329 I.T.R. (Cal). The petitioner further attacked the action of the authorities for attaching the bank account on the plea that keeping an application under section 220(6) of the said Act as well as an application for stay filed before the appellate authority for nearly two years, the authorities could not have proceeded hastily in passing an order for attachment. When the matter appeared at the motion stage Md. Nizamuddin, learned advocate for the department was directed to take instruction on the above issues. The facts as it appear, are not disputed. On the basis of a proceeding initiated by the department, an ex parte order of assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities as meaningless formalities. Quasijudicial authorities have to apply their mind in an objective and dispassionate manner to the merits of each application for stay. Which the interest of the Revenue has to be protected, it is necessary for Assessing Officers to realize that fairness to the assessee is an intrinsic element of the quasi-judicial function conferred upon them by law. Applications for stay must be disposed of at an early date. Such applications cannot be kept pending to obviate compliance with the need to evaluate the contentions of the assessee until after monies are recovered using the coercive arm of the law. Appellate authorities must set down time schedules for disposal of stay applications with reasonable expedit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed of expeditiously. Md. Nizamuddin tried to give an explanation at the bar that the said application is bereft of any averments which may justify the invocation of the bars provided under section 220 (6) of the said Act. Such submissions have no foundation for the simple reason that the authorities have not set in motion the said application but have kept the same in suspended animation. Even if the application is devoid of any explanation and /or averments there is no impediment on the part of the authorities to decide the same, in one way or the other. Keeping the application for stay pending for nearly two years and thereafter proceeded to pass an order of attachment amounts to proceeding in haste and such action cannot be said to be f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner. Now, the question is whether it was proper on the part of the Assessing Officer to attach and debit a sum without serving a copy of the notice of attachment on the assessee. Looking at the language of section 226(3) (iii) of the Act which stipulates that "A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the assessee at his last address known to the (Assessing) Officer ...." The answer has to be in the negative. The argument on behalf of the Revenue that actual service of the notice of attachment is not necessary cannot be accepted since the use of the word "shall" in section 226(3)(iii) mandates that such notice has to be served before action is taken. If recourse is not taken by the Revenue to the mode postulated under the Act it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he recovery. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that for non service of notice under section 226(3)(iv) of the Act the process of recovery under section 226(3) should be annulled. With great respect, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion expressed by the learned judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mohan Singh[1993] 204 ITR 571. I thus find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that recovery of amount by giving notice under section 226(3) of the Act from the State Bank of India is visited in any way." The judgement rendered in the case of Golam Momem (supra) which was not taken note of by the other co-ordinate bench in case of Purnima Das (supra) appears to me to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 lac have already been paid by the petitioner. While considering the unjust hardship which may be caused to the assessee, the Court shall also bear in mind the interest of the revenue as well. Since the last date for making the instalment is due on 5th March 2014 this Court to mitigate the situation and to render justice between the parties, directs the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.1 lac in the manner as has been done earlier, by tomorrow in the department. For such limited purposes, the bank shall allow the petitioner to operate the bank account, under attachment. Immediately upon payment of sum of Rs. 1 lac to the department, the order of attachment shall stand recalled/revoked/ cancelled. The bank shall thereafter allow the pe....