TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act, 1961 and Writ Petition Nos.17143 & 17144 of 2015 have been filed challenging the provisional attachment orders dated 25.2.2015 passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against both the individual and the company. Now it is represented that as against the original orders of assessment, the petitioners have filed nine appeals before the appellate authority viz., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai and that the department has also realized a sum of Rs. 1,33,86,909/-, leaving the balance of Rs. 23,87,948/-, in the meanwhile, pending disposal of the appeals. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners, while challenging the provisional attachment orders dated 25.2.2015 passed under Section 281B of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing more keenness to extend only the provisional attachment orders, as a result, the petitioner and his family are not in a position to operate the bank account, thereby the petitioner along with family members have been put to great prejudice and hardship. Again challenging the action taken by the assessing officer, he further submitted that questioning the correctness of the assessment orders passed on 31.3.2015, the petitioners have filed nine appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, namely, seven appeals by the individual Mr.T.M.Ramalingam in I.T.A.Nos.225/15-16 to 231/15-16 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and two appeals by the company in I.T.A.Nos.232/15-16 and 233/15-16 for the assessment years 2011-12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heavily on Section 281B, submitted that the proviso to the said section clearly answers the prayer against the petitioners that the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period of provisional attachment, as he thinks fit, however, the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days after the date of order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later. In the case on hand, when the assessment orders have been passed on 31.3.2015 by the respondent-assessing officer, the writ petitions questioning the validity of the provisional attachment orders cannot stand to any reason. Therefore, the contention made by the petitioners that the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner or Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days after the date of order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later.'' 5. A mere reading of the aforesaid proviso clearly shows that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not carry any merit. Indeed, the proviso says that the period of extension of provisional attachment shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do any business. 7. That apart, as per Instruction No.1914 dated 2.12.93, the stay application filed before the assessing officer should be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the petition by the tax payer. But it appears that the petitioners have filed the stay applications only before the appellate authority. Even the guideline B(iii) of the Instruction No.1914 also states that the decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by the assessing officer and his immediate superior, therefore, the stay applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be taken up for hearing and disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the above, t....