TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-2018 are concerned, the Assessing Officer made new additions in the assessment orders dated 06.02.2020. On the other hand, the assessment orders, pertaining to AYs 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, were passed with "Nil" addition. Subsequent to the said assessment order, the impugned attachment order came to be passed on 15.07.2022. 4. Aggrieved over the aforesaid assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. After hearing the concerned parties, the CIT(A) had set aside the aforesaid new additions made by the assessing officer and the appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 15.09.2023, which was given effect on 19.10.2023. 5. Thereafter, against the CIT(A) order dated 15.09.2023, the Department had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), whereby, the said order was confirmed by ITAT vide order dated 30.04.2025. 6. In a similar manner, an assessment order dated 30.09.2021, pertaining to the AY 2016-17, was passed under Section 153C of the IT Act with new additions. The said new additions were set aside by the CIT(A) vide order dated 24.06.2024 and the said order was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2011-12 Demand of Rs. 16,70,417/- vide assessment order u/s. 153A dt. 06.02.2020 The Assessee have filed a rectification petition u/s. 154 dated 13.01.2021 and a reminder request petition dated 01.02.2024 filed on 02.02.2024. Rectification order passed manually on 20.05.2025 reducing the demand to Rs. 41,841/-. 2012-13 Demand of Rs. 2,53,802/- vide assessment order u/s. 153A dt. 06.02.2020 The Assessee have filed a rectification petition u/s. 154 dated 13.01.2021 and a reminder request petition dated 01.02.2024 filed on 02.02.2024. Rectification order passed manually on 20.05.2025 reducing the demand to Rs. 644/-. 2014-15 Demand of Rs. 16,06,142/- vide assessment order u/s. 153A dt. 06.02.2020 The Assessee have filed a rectification petition u/s. 154 dated 13.01.2021 and a reminder request petition dated 01.02.2024 filed on 02.02.2024. Rectification order passed manually on 20.05.2025 reducing the demand to Rs. 45,604/-. 13. However, he had accepted the legal position as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned two citations referred by the petitioner and hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 14. I have given du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, which has been attached is more than Rupees Ten Crores, the value of the property, given as surety by Directors, is more than Rupees Twenty Crores, and action of the Revenue Department, in refusing to consider the petitioner's request for raising attachment not tenable. It is submitted that, this Court, in the case of (Sri Lakshmi Brick Industries Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer) reported in (2013) 351 ITC 0345 has considered a similar issue to release the property, which was the subject matter of attachment, and rendered the decision, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of (Sri Mohan Wahi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others) reported in (2001) 248 ITR 799. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Income Tax Department has referred to Section 225 (3) of the Act, and submitted that, where a certificate has been drawn up, and subsequently, the amount of the outstanding demand is reduced as a result of an Appeal, or other proceeding, under the Act, the Tax Recovery Officer shall, when the order, which was the subject matter of such Appeal, or other proceeding has become final and conclusive, amend the certificate, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case. 10. The contention of the Revenue is that, the terms ''final'' and ''conclusive'' would mean the finality attached to the order, when the order is challenged and taken to the logical end, or in the case, where the Department accepts the judgment. In other words, the stand taken by the Revenue is that, even if the Revenue fails to succeed in the Tax Case Appeals, yet, they got a remedy of Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and only thereafter, the proceeding could be construed as final and conclusive. However, I am not in a position of subscribing to such a submission, as Section 225 (3) should not be read in isolation, but should be read along with Section 222. This is so because, in terms of Section 222, where, an assessee is in default, or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax, the Tax Recovery Officer may issue a certificate, specifying the amount of arrears due from the assessee, and shall proceed to recover from such assessee, the amount so specified, by one or more of the modes, which includes attachment and sale of the assessee's immovable properties. The second schedule sets out the procedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking note of Rules 56 and 63 of schedule II to the Act, yet, the underlying legal principal is that, once the demand has been reduced to nil, the Tax Recovery Officer has no power to confirm the sale. If that be the case, then, it would apply with more force in a case of attachment, which is a step anterior to sale. 13. The decision rendered in Sri Mohan Wahi's case (supra) was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Sri Lakshmi Brick Industries case (supra) wherein, it was held as follows:- "12. In the present case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the highest fact finding authority, held infavour of the petitioner assessee and that order has been given effect to. As a consequence, the Tax Recovery Officer is bound to give effect of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who accepted the order of the Tribunal. It is another matter for the Department to proceed in Appeal, and the Department is always at liberty to proceed for recovery, if they succeed in the Appeal before the Court. The provisions of Section 225(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961, gives a mandate to Tax Recovery Officer to pass appropriate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch remained in abeyance pending decision by a final and conclusive order. 17. However, in contradistinction to the present case, the Appeal filed by the petitioner/assessee has been allowed in full by ITAT, and demand of tax, in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 was Nil, and with regard to two assessment years, it has resulted in refund. Thus, to say that the order of attachment should still continue till the matter reaches the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be an interpretation, which would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, more particularly, by reading together Sections 222 and 225 of the Act. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the object of the demand is to secure the interest of the revenue. The Income Tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to attach the property based on a certificate issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, certifying that the assessee is a defaulter. As on date, the Tax Recovery Officer has not issued such a certificate. Even assuming that the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue is entertained, that by itself, will not make the petitioner as an assessee in default, on account of the fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove direction shall be complied with by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 19. A reading of the above would show that once if the order attained its finality on the factual aspect at the level of ITAT and if the amount was paid as per the order passed by the Tribunal, no further recovery can be initiated and thus, the concerned Authority is bound to lift the attachment order. 20. In a similar way, this Court had already dealt with the very same issue in W.P.Nos.22913 to 22915 & 24101 of 2012 and passed the order dated 01.02.2013 (referred supra). The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: "12. In the present case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the highest fact finding authority, held in favour of the petitioner assessee and that order has been given effect to. As a consequence, the Tax Recovery Officer is bound to give effect of the order of the Assistant Commissioner who accepted the order of the Tribunal. It is another matter for the department to proceed in appeal and the depar....