Bal Bhadra Lal V. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Jharkhand And Ors

WPC/297/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Bal Bhadra Lal, the petitioner, who contested the attachment of his savings bank account by the Income Tax Department under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.4,97,870. The petitioner argued that the attachment was done without a proper demand notice and sought the quashing of the attachment order and a refund of the deducted amount. The respondents countered by providing evidence of the tax liability and the subsequent withdrawal of the attachment notice. The court found the writ petition to be infructuous following the withdrawal of the notice and dismissed the amendment application for lack of evidence supporting the claims of illegal deduction and demand for damages.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759287 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG VIJAY; OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHIKANT OJHA; ABHAY SINGH
• Keywords: Attachment of bank account; Income Tax; Recovery of dues; Illegal Deduction; Mental and Physical Harassment
• Section: 143(1); 139(4); 226(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 297 of 2018 Bal Bhadra Lal, son of Late Choudhari Lal, resident of Agra Ghat Road, Makatpur, P.O. & P.S.Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) --- --- Appellant Versus 1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jharkhand having its Office at Aaykar Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Luby Circular Road, P.O& P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Deoghar having its office at Srikrishnapuri behind SBI Training Centre, Williams Town, P.O & P.S. Deoghar, District: Deoghar 4.The Income Tax Officer, (Ward-III) Giridih having its office at BBC Road, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District-Giridih 5.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, having its office at Raja Bangla, Main Road, P.O., P.S. & District-Gridih --- --- Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Shashikant Ojha, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Standing Counsel Income Tax Mr. Omprakash, Advocate Order No.08/ Dated 6th March 2024 This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) For quashing of the letter no. ACIT/Cir3(1) /Deo/226(3)/2017- 18/1249 dated 08/09/2017 (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for attachment of the savings bank account bearing no.915010023600333 of the petitioner and for recovery of the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.4,97,870/- pending on account of Income Tax/penalty/interest/fine on part of the petitioner; (b) For direction upon the Respondent No. 5 to immediately and forthwith release the savings bank account bearing no.915010023600333 of the petitioner which has been illegally & arbitrarily attached by the Respondent No.3 without any issuance of demand notice upon the petitioner; (c) For direction upon the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.4 to immediately and forthwith refund the amount of Rs.4,97,870/- to the petitioner which has been illegally and arbitrarily deducted from the savings bank account of the petitioner; AND/OR For issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2 W.P.(T) No. 297 of 2018 2. The petitioner has pleaded that he is an income-tax assesse who filed belated income-tax return under Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the respondent-department did not process the return filed by him and no notice under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax issued a direction to the Branch Manager of the Axis Bank at Giridih under section 226(3) of Income Tax Act for attachment of the savings bank account belonging to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that on 15th March 2018, the earlier notice issued under Section 226(3) of Income Tax Act was withdrawn. A copy of the said communication made to the Branch Manager of the Axis Bank has been produced vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The respondents have also brought on record notice under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act which shows tax liability to the tune of Rs.4,97,870/- payable by the petitioner. 3. Now on the basis of the communication dated 15th March 2018, the petitioner seeks to amend the prayer in the writ petition seeking payment of interest over Rs.4,97,870/- and damages, cost of litigation etc. In so far as the application for amendment vide I.A. No. 9381 of 2023 is concerned, this application is bereft of foundational facts inasmuch as the petitioner has not produced any document so as to establish that Rs.4,97,870/- was withdrawn by the Income-Tax Department from his savings bank account. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.4,97,870/- was refunded to the petitioner on 22nd July 2020 and this fact is itself a proof that the said amount was illegally attached and arbitrarily deducted from the saving bank account of the petitioner. In fact, in paragraph no. 5 of the application the petitioner himself has stated that his savings bank account was attached and no proof of refund has been produced by him. Furthermore, the petitioner has claimed damages, litigation cost compensation on account of mental and physical harassment but such claims cannot be awarded in a writ proceeding, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3 W.P.(T) No. 297 of 2018 4. While so, I.A. 9381 of 2023 is dismissed. 5. Having regard to withdrawal of the notice dated 19th September 2017, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty/R.Kumar "