Smt. Sangeetha Caddy V. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-2(1) and The Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (Central)

WP/1279/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Sangeetha Caddy, who filed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provisionally attached her immovable property during the pendency of assessment proceedings against her husband, Shri Peter Caddy. The property in question is located at No.859, 4th 'A' Cross, 11th Main, Koramangala, Bangalore. The petitioner argued that the property, although listed under her husband's name in the tax records, is exclusively owned by her. The court, however, did not address the substantive issues of ownership or the legality of the attachment but instead directed the petitioner to present her case to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax with appropriate documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799292 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUSHREE JOIS
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Immovable Property; Income Tax; Provisional attachment
• Section: 226; 281B

Judgement Text

" W.P.No.1279/2013 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH W.P.No.1279/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT SANGEETHA CADDY W/O SHRI PETER CADDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.859, 4TH A CROSS 11TH MAIN , 4TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034 ... PETITIONER (BY MS. ANUSHREE JOIS, ADVOCATE OF M/S SREEVATSA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), 4TH FLOOR C.R. BUILDING ANNEXE, QUEEN’S ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA (CENTRAL) BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2012 OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2[1] BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 281B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND LOCATED AT NO.859, 4TH 'A' CROSS, 11TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI PETER CADDY, PURPORTEDLY TO PROTECT W.P.No.1279/2013 - 2 - REVENUE, PROHIBITING THE SAID SHRI PETER CADDY FROM TRANSFERRING OR CHARGING THE PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING ALL PERSONS INTEREST THEREIN FROM TAKING ANY BENEFIT UNDER SUCH TRANSFER OR CHARGE VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R AX D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure-G), passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said order reads as follows: “ORDER U/S. 281B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 The assessee, Sri Peter Caddy is in possession of the following property: SL.No. Description of properties Location of property 1 Sri Peter Caddy No.859, 4th “A” Cross, 11th Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 No.859, 4th “A” Cross, 11th Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 2. The assessment proceedings of this assessee is pending for the Asst. Years 2006-07 to 2012- 13. Assessment once concluded would result in W.P.No.1279/2013 - 3 - substantial demand. For the purpose of protecting the interest of revenue, it is found necessary to invoke the provisions of Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the above said property. 3. Attachment of the immovable property as above is hereby made by the order prohibiting the assessee from transferring or charging the property and Prohibiting all persons interest therein from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge. 4. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (Central), Bangalore.” 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Shri Peter Caddy, referred to in the impugned order above is the petitioner’s husband and the property referred to therein is exclusively owned by the petitioner. She submits that the order impugned is erroneous inasmuch as respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded to pass the order as if the property referred to therein belonged to the petitioner’s husband. She also submits that the W.P.No.1279/2013 - 4 - petitioner has not approached the aforesaid Officer for setting aside of the impugned order 3. In my opinion, it is appropriate for the petitioner to first approach respondent No.1 namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, by furnishing all the relevant documents in support of her claim. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Yn/ata. "