V.AJAYAKUMAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Court directed the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider the petitioners' request for the release of attachments on immovable properties. This consideration was to be based on the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the existing demands. The Court further stipulated that the first respondent could retain attachment on any property sufficiently valuable to cover the probable demand arising from potential penalty impositions. A decision on this matter was to be taken within two weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessments or the penalty proceedings, but rather on the procedural aspect of securing the demand.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, two brothers, had assessments completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Following these assessments, attachments were placed on various immovable properties belonging to the petitioners and their family members to realize the amounts due. The petitioners contended that the total amounts assessed were less than Rs. 15 lakhs each. They requested the release of attachments by offering to furnish bank guarantees for the assessed amounts. The revenue opposed this, stating that penalty proceedings had also been initiated, and those amounts also needed to be secured. The petitioners argued that attaching just one property would suffice to cover the potential demand from all proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide whether the attachment of immovable properties could be released upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the assessed tax amount, considering ongoing penalty proceedings. (Question of law and fact, relating to Section 143(3) and 153A of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's contention: The petitioners argued that the assessed amounts were less than Rs. 15 lakhs each and that furnishing a bank guarantee for these amounts should be sufficient for the release of attachments. They also contended that retaining attachment on a single property would be adequate to cover any potential demand, including penalties. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that penalty proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners, and the amounts due from these proceedings also needed to be secured. Therefore, they contended that attachments could not be released solely based on a bank guarantee for the assessed tax amount.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3758 of 2011(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.AJAYAKUMAR , VRA-A6, SREE AYSWARYA, ARIKKADAMKKU, NEMOM PO, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DEVIKRIPA, PALLIKUKKU, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (3) TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE ,5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.3914/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos. 3758 and 3914 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners in both these cases are brothers. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, against the petitioners, by virtue of Ext.P2 series orders in WP(C). 3758/11 and Ext.P2 order in WP(C). 3914/11. For realising the amounts covered under the orders of assessment, attachments were effected on various items of immovable properties, belonging to the petitioners, their wives and other family members, through Ext.P3 series notices in both the cases and p6 in WP(C). 3758/11. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that the amounts covered under the assessments in both these cases will be less than Rs.15 lakhs each. The petitioner had approached the 1st respondent through various requests to release the attachments on the basis of specific offer to furnish Bank guarantee for the amounts due under the orders of assessment. Since the 1st respondent has not acceded to such requests, these writ petitions are filed.
W.P.(C).3758 & 3914/11 -2- 3. Heard standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that, apart from the assessments, proceedings for imposing penalty against the petitioners were already initiated and such amounts are also to be secured. Hence despite the offer for furnishing Bank Guarantee for the tax amount assessed, the attachments could not be released, is the contention. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand submitted that if attachment is continued with respect to any one of the items of the properties, it will be sufficient to cover the probable demand which may arise out of all the proceedings. 5. Considering the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the 1st respondent can be directed to take appropriate decision with respect to the request for release of the attachment on various items of immovable properties, on the basis of the offer to furnish Bank Guarantee and to retain attachment in any of the items of properties which is worth enough to cover the liability on the event of penalty being imposed. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner for release of the attachment on the basis of the offer for furnishing
W.P.(C).3758 & 3914/11 -3- Bank Guarantee for the demand now pending. 1st respondent will consider the request and take appropriate decision, if the petitioner furnishes the Bank Guarantee for the existing demands. The release of the attachment can be considered after retaining any items of properties which are sufficient to cover the probable demand in case any penalty is imposed. 7. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb
More judgments on Section 153A
- V S A Infra Projects Private Limited… vs DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 903/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2016-17
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026