TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (11) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the President and subsequently the Ordinance having been replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that she is the sole proprietor of the firm called Shreejee Diamond Industries and she carries on business at Mahidharpura, Zaveri Bazar, Surat. According to her, the petitioner's business is of diamond cutting and she earns livelihood from the income thereof. The petitioner, according to her, is an income-tax payer and has filed income-tax returns for the assessment year 1978-79, ending 31st March, 1978. According to the petitioner, she received a demand draft for Rs. 65,000. This demand draft was issued on December 20, 1977, and the same was negotiated by her with one Vijaykuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce. It is the case of the petitioner, as urged at the stage of arguments before us, that provisional attachment must cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order made under sub-s. (1) of s. 281B but, under the proviso, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period of six months 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. Miss Shah on behalf of the petitioner urged before us at the time of hearing that, on the last day of the period of six months contemplated by s. 281 B(2) of the I.T. Act, the ITO, Circle II-D, has purported to pass another order directing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posal form put up by the ITO and the orders passed thereon has been kept on the record of the case. Columns Nos. 1 to 7 do not deal with extension of the period of attachment under s. 281B of the I.T. Act. Column No. 8 is in these terms : " Whether this is fresh proposal or for extension of time. If it is for extension of time, No. and date of approval granted for the first time should be mentioned. " And against this column, the ITO has written : " The period of six months expires on 24-9-78. As the enquiry is still pending, extension may be granted for further six months. Approval under s. 281 B was granted by the CIT, Guj. II, by his letter No. Conf. Hq. 182/B-17/78 dt. 24-3-78." There is nothing else mentioned on the face of the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to say by stretching the language that the Commissioner decided that the period of attachment should be extended, yet there is no order by the Commissioner himself that the period of provisional attachment should be extended by a further period of six months. The only possible reason for extension of time which emerges from the documents before us is " as the enquiry is still pending ". The Commissioner does not appear to have found out why the inquiry was still pending and how long the inquiry was likely to take. The Commissioner does not seem to have applied his mind to any reasons for the extension of the period of attachment for a further period of six months beyond this ipse dixit of the ITO concerned that the inquiry was still pen....