P. Premkumar V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle II and Tax Recovery Officer, Range I Ernakulam

WP(C)/17321/2009

AI Insights

The case involves P. Premkumar, the petitioner, who contested the continued attachment of his property by the income tax authorities despite a favorable appellate decision and subsequent refund order. The petitioner argued that the attachment should be lifted following the Appellate Tribunal's decision, which set aside the initial assessment order and ordered a refund. However, the Tax Recovery Officer and other respondents failed to lift the attachment, citing an ongoing appeal, which was not substantiated by specific details or an appeal number. The Ombudsman also criticized the department's inaction, leading to this Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to lift the property attachment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670842 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K I MATHER; MAHESH MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Property Attachment; Writ petition; Ombudsman
• Section: 225(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17321 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- P.PREMKUMAR, 'LAKSHMI' K.K.VISWANATHAN ROAD, KARUVELIPADY,COCHIN-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE, THARAKKANDAM CENTRE BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE I ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC – I.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17321 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is against the arbitrary stand and callous inaction on the part of the respondents in lifting the attachment over the property belonging to the petitioner, despite the fact that the assessment order has already been set aside as per Ext.P1 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, pursuant to which the first respondent has passed Ext.P2 ordering refund as well. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the amount due has also already been disbursed to the petitioner. In view of the orders obtained in favour of the petitioner, Ext.P3 request was made before the third respondent for 'lifting the attachment' over the properties; to which the said respondent has turned his back vide Ext.P4 and P5 wherein vague and evasive statement has been made pointing out that the issue is pending in appeal. 2. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the concerned Ombudsman, who passed Ext.P6 order deprecating the stand taken by the departmental authorities, holding that the attachment is liable to be lifted. The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation before the assessing officer for lifting the attachment and since the steps taken in this regard have been turned futile, the petitioner is now before this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. WPC NO.17321/2009 2 3. When the matter came up for admission on 23.06.2009, the standing Counsel was required to get specific instructions as to the particulars and stage of the appeal, which is stated as pending before this Court. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 29.06.2009, on which day, further time was sought for. Even today the position remains to be the same and the respondents are not in a position at least to furnish the number of the appeal which is stated as pending before this Court. The course, attitude and approach pursued by the department cannot but be deprecated. Since no appeal is stated as admitted, the reliance sought to be placed on Section 225 (3) of the I.T. Act is wrong and misconceived. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the third respondent is hereby directed to lift the attachment over the property in question by passing necessary orders thereon within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc "