DUO MEADOWS PRIVATE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the factual aspects concerning the details of development expenses, including names, addresses, and PAN numbers of payees, which are the basis of the challenge to the assessment order, necessarily require examination by the appellate authority, which is the machinery provided under the Act. The Court stated that questions of fact cannot be examined under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner was relegated to the appellate forum to assail the assessment order. Regarding the Section 281B order, the Court noted it had ceased to have effect after six months from the assessment order's date. The Court directed that the attachment order shall not be enforced until a decision is taken by the Appellate Authority on any stay application filed by the assessee within three weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Duo Meadows Private Ltd., a property development company, is challenging a provisional attachment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They are also challenging the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) and the consequential demand notice dated 28.12.2018 under Section 156 for assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner's primary grievance is that the Section 281B order is non-speaking and void, and that the assessment order suffers from non-application of mind as the Assessing Officer ignored details of development expenses, including addresses and PAN numbers of payees, despite them being furnished. The revenue argued that factual aspects require examination by the appellate authority and that the Section 281B order has a limited lifespan.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a non-speaking order and void ab initio? The petitioner contended that it is a non-speaking order and therefore void. The revenue argued that the order has a short lifespan and its challenge may not survive. 2. Whether the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suffers from non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer? The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer ignored furnished details of development expenses, including addresses and PAN numbers of payees, and that the order was passed immediately after the attachment order, indicating haste. The revenue contended that the factual aspects regarding the furnished details require examination by the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2320/2019 (T – IT) BETWEEN:
DUO MEADOWS PRIVATE LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.18,G1, ROYAL HERITAGE MAGRATH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. NARAYANA MANJUNATH S/O SRI. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. ... PETITIONER [BY SMT VANI H., ADV.]
AND:
INCOME TAX OFFICER
OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2 (1)(3)
ROOM No.207, 2ND FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD
7TH CROSS KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU – 560 095.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1)(3)
ROOM No.207, 2ND FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD
7TH CROSS KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU 560 095. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.]
- 2 -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 281B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE R-1VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the provisional attachment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 281B as well as the Assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) and the consequential demand notice dated 28.12.2018 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short).
The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of development of immovable properties, formation of layouts, sale of the sites/plots thereof. The petitioner was subjected to assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act relating to the assessment year 2016- 17. Before passing of the assessment order on 28.12.2018, an order dated 27.12.2018 was passed under Section 281B of the Act attaching the properties
- 3 - belonging to the assessee in order to protect the interest of the revenue during the assessment proceedings.
It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the order under Section 281B of the Act is a non- speaking order and the same is void ab initio. As regards the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the details of the development expenses and other direct expenses were furnished with the addresses and the PAN numbers of the persons to whom the payments were made. Ignoring the same, the Assessing Officer has observed that no addresses and PAN numbers have been furnished by the assessee except the names in support of the development expenses and direct expenses. The same discloses the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It is contended that immediately after passing of the order under Section 281B of the Act on 27.12.2018, the next day i.e., on 28.12.2018 the assessment order has been
- 4 - passed. Thus, it is contended that the orders impugned herein being violative of the fundamental principles of law deserve to be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing for the revenue would submit that the factual aspects now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the list with addresses and PAN numbers with names found in the compromise account prima- facie does not tally and this aspect requires to be considered by the appellate authority. Hence, the petitioner may be relegated to the appellate forum. It is further submitted that the order passed under Section 281B of the Act has a short span of life of six months and pursuant to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, extension of the said order is ordinarily not contemplated. Hence, the challenge made to the said order does not survive for consideration.
- 5 -
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is some force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue as the assessment order is challenged on the factual aspects in as much as the details of names and PAN numbers said to have been furnished by the assessee to whom the payments are made to establish the claim made, the same necessarily requires to be examined by the appellate authority, the machinery provided under the Act. The question of facts cannot be examined under the writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Forum to assail the assessment order impugned. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law on merits without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
- 6 -
The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 281B of the Act has been ceased to have effect after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the assessment. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the provisional attachment further would not arise and the same can be allayed with a direction to the respondent- authorities that the said order shall not be enforced until a decision is to be taken by the Appellate Authority on the stay application, if to be filed in the appeal proceedings by the assessee within a period of three weeks as aforesaid and is ordered accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
PMR
More judgments on Section 281B
- Swift Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4923/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, New DelhiITA 2604/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, New DelhiITA 2603/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, New DelhiITA 2601/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, New DelhiITA 2600/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhat Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Paramount Tea Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026