China First Metallurgical Construction India Pvt Ltd v. Dy. Director Of Income Tax & Ors

Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2023.09.2715:10:04+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.9592 OF 2021 China First Metallurgical Construction India Pvt Ltd.Vs.Dy. Director of Income Tax & Ors. ..Petitioner ..Respondents ---- Ms Ritika Agarwal a/w Ms Ayesha Ansari a/w Ms Kshitija Shinde forPetitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.Mr. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for Respondent No.3. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATED : 26[th] SEPTEMBER 2023 P.C. : 1Further to our order dated 8[th] September 2023, Mr. Suresh Kumarstates an affidavit of one Ms Katyayani Bhatia affirmed on 19[th] September2023 has been filed. We have perused the affidavit, in which it is stated thatthe order passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act)is no longer operative. At the same time, the said Ms Bhatia has stated thatthe scrutiny assessment under Section 153A of the Act for A.Y.2015-2016 toA.Y.-2020-2021 was completed on 31[st] March 2022, whereby a demand ofRs.123,96,51,364/- was raised and subsequently, assessment for AY 2021-2022 was completed on 16[th] September 2022 raising demand ofRs.10,70,49,677/-. The penalty has also been imposed on assessee and thereis a demand outstanding in the case of assessee of Rs.145.52 crores. In theaffidavit, it is stated that to protect the interest of Revenue, petitioner’s bank accounts were attached under Section 226(3) of the Act on 7[th] May 2022after obtaining prior approval from PCIT (Central)-2, New Delhi. 2Ms Agarwal states that petitioner has not been aware about any suchaction and it is for the first time these details are made available topetitioner. Ms Agarwal further submitted in any case, the extension ofprovisional attachment order dated 3[rd] June 2021 was illegal because therewas no original order under Section 281B attaching the bank accounts. Mr.Suresh Kumar states relying on affidavit of Ms Bhatia that since those ordersare no longer operative, it would be only an academic exercise. 3Petition was basically challenging the attachment under Section 281Bof the Act. Since those attachments are no more operative, we dispose thepetition. It will be open to petitioner to challenge the orders passed underSection 226(3) of the Act and the assessment orders in accordance with lawin the appropriate Forum. We are not making any observation on the meritsof such action to be taken by petitioner. 4Petition disposed. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)