SMT VANITHA S vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/15598/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01034309202510 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that it is an undisputed fact that neither the petitioner nor the partnership firm were assessees; only Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh was the assessee. The Court noted that the petitioner became the sole, absolute, and exclusive owner of the scheduled property through a registered Sale Deed dated January 25, 2023, and the assessee had no right, title, or interest in it. Therefore, the respondents erred in attaching the property, wrongly showing it as belonging to the assessee. The Court quashed the provisional attachment orders dated August 3, 2022, and May 28, 2024, specifically concerning the Schedule A property at Sl.No.3, which is the property in dispute. The Court also noted the submission by the respondents that they would proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Vanitha S, is challenging provisional attachment orders dated August 3, 2022, and May 28, 2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 281B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. These orders provisionally attached an immovable property. The property was initially purchased by a partnership firm, "M/s Sri Vayuputhra Electro World," in which the petitioner and Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh were partners. The firm sold the property on December 22, 2021. Subsequently, the property was sold to Smt. Vinutha J, who then sold it to the petitioner on January 25, 2023. The petitioner contends that the attachment order, insofar as it relates to her property, is invalid because she is not the assessee, nor is the partnership firm. The sole assessee is Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisional attachment order under Section 281B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is valid concerning the property exclusively owned by the petitioner, who is not the assessee. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the provisional attachment order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed as it pertains to a property that exclusively and absolutely belongs to her. She asserts that neither she nor the partnership firm were assessees; only Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh was the assessee. Therefore, attaching her property, which he had no right, title, or interest in, is erroneous. Revenue's contention: The respondent department contended that there is no merit in the petition and that it is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 281B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15598 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SMT VANITHA S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SURYANARAYANA AITHAL RESIDING AT #103, 1ST FLOOR, YUGAL PARADISE, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, NEAR SAMBHRAM COLLEGE, BEST COUNTY - 2, CHIKKA BETTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3),

BENGALURU, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN,

4TH FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD,

GANGANAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 032.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),

BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING,

80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT DATED 03.08.2022 BEARING FILE NO. AFKPR35Q8P/281B/CC-1(3).BLR/2022-23 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 281B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, I.E. SL. NO.3 OF ANNEXURE-A TO THE ORDER (ANNEXURE- A)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Quashing the Impugned order of Provisional Attachment dated 03.08.2022 bearing File No. AFKPR35Q8P/281B/CC-1(3).Blr/2022-23 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, insofar as it relates to the Schedule Property of the Petitioner, i.e. Sl.No.3 of Annexure A to the order (Annexure 'A');

(ii) Quashing the Impugned Order of Provisional Attachment dated 28.05.2024 bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1065198976(1) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, insofar as it relates to the Schedule Property of the Petitioner, i.e. Sl.No.3 of Annexure A to the order (Annexure 'B')

(iii) Quashing all the other Orders of Provisional Attachment passed by the 1st Respondent and the Orders of Extension a Provisional Attachment passed by the 2nd Respondent pursuant to the Impugned Order of Provisional Attachment dated 03.08.2022 bearing File No. AFKPR35Q8P/281B/CC1(3).Blr/2022-23 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 281B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure 'A'), insofar as they relate to the Schedule Property of the Petitioner; and

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

(iv) Pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner Smt. Vanitha S and the assessee Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh became partners by entering into a Partnership Deed dated 19.04.2019. Pursuant to which, a partnership firm was constituted under the name and style of "M/s Sri Vayuputhra Electro World" comprising of the petitioner and the said Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh, who are the only two partners. On 29.08.2019, the said partnership firm purchased an immovable property bearing BBMP Khata No.758 / 662 / 784 / 756 situated at BEML 3rd Stage, Halagevaderhalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, from one from Sri. R. Sudarshan and Smt. S. Gawrishri. Subsequently, vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2021, the said partnership firm sold the said property in favour of Smt. Vinutha J. Thereafter, on 03.08.2022, the 1st respondent - Authority issued a provisional attachment order to

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

attach the properties of the aforesaid Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh including the aforesaid property purchased by the aforesaid partnership firm, which had already been sold in favour of Smt. Vinutha J., much prior to the order of attachment.

4.

Subsequently, the aforesaid Smt. Vinutha J. sold the said property in favour of the petitioner vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.2023, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent issued one more provisional attachment order dated 28.05.2024 continuing the attachment of the said property qua the petitioner also, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is a specific contention of the petitioner that so long as the aforesaid Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh was the only assessee and not the petitioner or the partnership firm, the question of attaching the aforesaid property belonging exclusively and absolutely to the petitioner would not arise and as such, the impugned provisional attachment order at Annexures - A and B insofar as it relates to the Schedule property at Sl.No.3 of the impugned attachment orders deserves to be quashed.

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - department submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that neither the petitioner nor the partnership firm "M/s Sri Vayuputhra Electro World" are assessees and it is only the aforesaid Mr.Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh, who is the assessee against whom the respondents have proceeded in his individual capacity and not as the partner of the partnership firm "M/s Sri Vayuputhra Electro World". It is also not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid scheduled property vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.2023 from its earlier owner Smt.Vinutha J, pursuant to which, the petitioner became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the suit schedule property over which the aforesaid assessee Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession. It follows therefrom that so long as the petitioner was the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the scheduled property coupled with the fact that neither the petitioner nor the partnership

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

firm "M/s Sri Vayuputhra Electro World" were assesses and the sole assessee was Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh, the respondents clearly fell in error in wrongly showing the property to be standing in the name of Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh, which is incorrect and contrary to the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present petition especially when several other properties, in all 16 other properties are shown among the Schedule A properties to be standing in the name of the assessee Mr. Venkatachalapathi Ramamurthy Rajesh as can be seen from the impugned order. The submission made on behalf of the respondents that they would proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law and the provisions of the Income Tax Act is placed on record.

7.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The provisional attachment orders at Annexures

A and B dated 03.08.2022 and 28.05.2024 insofar as it

relates to Sl.No.3 of Schedule A property bearing BBMP

Khata No.758 / 662 / 784 / 756 situated at BEML 3rd Stage,

- 7 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40157 WP No. 15598 of 2025

Halagevaderhalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South

Taluk, are hereby quashed.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18

More judgments on Section 281B

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 281B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →