Shriram Adarsh Shiksha Samiti vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/6813/2020HC Madhya Pradesh04 November 2020Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE3 pages
For Petitioner: Abhishek OswalFor Respondent: Jitendra Kumar Jain
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the relief sought for quashing the bank account attachment notice was rendered infructuous as the bank account had been released after an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- was attached against the outstanding demand. Regarding the challenge to the assessment order, the Court observed that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court was not inclined to grant indulgence based on the petitioner's contention of pending appeals and the alleged non-availability of the Appellate Authority, which was disputed by the respondents. The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appropriate application for early hearing before the Appellate Authority, which would be considered on its merits. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shriram Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.12.2019 and a notice of attachment dated 25.02.2020. The assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18 determined the assessee's income at Rs. 33,64,957/-, leading to a demand notice of Rs. 16,53,196/- under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the tax was not deposited, proceedings under Section 226(3) were initiated, resulting in the attachment of the assessee's bank account. The respondents stated that Rs. 4,45,000/- was attached, and the bank account was released on 15.04.2020. The respondents also noted that the assessee had already filed an appeal under Section 144 against the assessment order, which was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available and has been availed by the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the High Court should grant relief against a notice of attachment under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the attached amount has already been realized and the bank account released? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that due to over 600 pending appeals and the non-availability of the Appellate Authority, there was no likelihood of an early hearing, justifying the writ petition. The petitioner also challenged the assessment order and the attachment notice. Revenue's contentions: The respondents stated that the attachment notice was rendered infructuous as the bank account had been released after partial attachment. They further contended that since the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the assessment order, the High Court should not interfere. The respondents disputed the petitioner's claim regarding the non-availability of the Appellate Authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 226(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 WP-6813/2020 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Division Bench) Hearing through video conferencing

Writ Petition No.6813/2020 Shriram Adarsh Shiksha Samiti versus Income Tax Officer and others Shri Abhishek Oswal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge O R D E R (Jabalpur, dated : 04.11.2020) Per : Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice : Challenge in this petition is to an assessment order dated 30.12.2019 and the notice of attachment dated 25.02.2020. That by impugned assessment order is assessed to income of Rs.33,64,957/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Accordingly demand notice of Rs.16,53,196/- was issued under Section 156 of Income Tax Act, 1961. As the tax was not deposited the petitioner was subjected to the proceedings under Section 226 2 WP-6813/2020 of 1961 Act, by issuing impugned notice under Sub-Section (3) of Section 226 of 1961 Act for attachment of Bank A/c. 2- Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the preliminary submissions wherein it is stated that in response to impugned notice under Section 226 (3) of 1961 Act an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- has been attached against the outstanding demand of Rs.16,53,196/-. It is urged that after the deposit of said amount, the Bank A/c of the petitioner has been released on 15.04.2020. As regard to challenge to assessment order it is urged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 144 of 1961 Act which is pending consideration. 3- The fact adverted at by the respondents are not contradicted. 4- In view whereof, the relief sought for quashing of Bank A/c attachment notice is rendered infructous. 5- As to challenge to Assessment Order since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of Statutory Appeal, we are not inclined to cause indulgence, merely on the contention that 3 WP-6813/2020 there are over 600 Appeals pending and for non-availability of the Appellate Authority there is no likelihood of early hearing. 6- The non-availability of the Appellate Authority is however seriously disputed by the respondents. 7- Be that as it may since the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the impugned assessment order, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence. Petitioner, however would be at liberty to file appropriate application for early hearing which may be considered by the Appellate Authority on its merit. 8- With these observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No costs. (Sanjay Yadav)

(Vijay Kumar Shukla) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 2020.11.06 01:42:44 -08'00'

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →