Putta Kishore and Bojja Chandrasekhar Reddy V. The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Hyderabad and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9(1) Hyderabad and M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited and State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapet Main Branch

WP/13113/2009

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Putta Kishore and Bojja Chandrasekhar Reddy against the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Hyderabad and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9(1) Hyderabad, among others. The petitioners challenged an order dated 6th March 2009, which directed the State Bank of Hyderabad to freeze the account of M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, resulting in the inability of the petitioners to encash cheques issued by the said company. The petitioners argued that the order was illegal and arbitrary. However, the court found that the petitioners were not the proper parties aggrieved by the order, as it was directed against the third respondent, and thus, the petition was dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797132 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 281-B of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S R ASHOK
• Assessee Lawyers: PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI
• Keywords: Bank Account Attachment; Cheques; Income Tax; Legal Arbitrary; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 281-B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13113 of 2009 Between: 1 Putta Kishore S/o. Ramulu R/o. H.No. 3-7-135, Rajeevnagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Bojja Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy R/o. H.No. 3-5-131/1/A, Jammigadda Locality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circlr 9(1) Hyderabad. 3 M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director Theppali Saidulu, S/o. Bixam. 4 State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapet Main Branch, Nalgonda District. Rep. by its Branch Manager. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in he nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.6-3-2009 in F.No.281B/DCIT/2008- 09 U/Sec.281-B of the I.T. Act directing the 4th Respondent to freeze the account of the 3rd Respondent by which the cheques presented by the petitioners were returned as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent No.4 herein to honour the cheques presented by the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.S.R.ASHOK (Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dt.6.3.2009 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the bank accounts of respondent No.3 have been attached. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.3 had given certain cheques in favour of the petitioners and because of the attachment of the bank accounts of respondent No.3, the petitioners are unable to get the cheques encashed. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that the bank accounts of respondent No.3 have been attached under the provisions of Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, as respondent No.3 has not paid its dues to the respondent income tax authorities. In our opinion, the present petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order dt.6.3.2009, which is virtually against respondent No.3. It would be open to the petitioners to recover the amount due from respondent No.3 in accordance with law by any other mode available to them. We do not find any illegality committed by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order dt.6.3.2009 is concerned. Needless to say that we have not decided the validity of the impugned order so far as respondent No.3 is concerned. The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-07-2009 bnr "