Emmthree Financial Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar & Ors
High Court
05 Apr 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Emmthree Financial Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar & Ors
Date of order
05 Apr 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Emmthree Financial Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar & Ors, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: With the above directions/observations, thewrit petition stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
CW 4441/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4441/10
Emmthree Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 05/04/2010HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for petitioner
***
Instant petition has been filed against thecommunication made by Income Tax Officer, WardNo.2(3), Alwar dt.6[th] August, 2008 [Ann.6] wherebythe Tehsildar, Hurda, District Bharatpur wasinformed that the land in question is underprovisional attachment in terms of Sec.281-B ofIncome Tax Act, 1961 since 30[th] March, 2004 andfurther letter was sent from his office on 3[rd]March, 2010 in regard to property in question.
Counsel for petitioner submits that undersub-section (2) of Sec.281-B of the Act life ofprovisional attachment is for the period of sixmonths and which at the best could be extendedupto 2 yrs. in terms of proviso to sub-sec.(2) ofSec.281-B of the Act and if it is taken to be anorder initially passed on 30[th] March, 2004 atleaston the date of issuance of letter dt.6[th] August,2008 statutory period for provisional attachmentof the property by passage of time has expired.As such, the property in question cannot be
CW 4441/10
considered to be in provisional attachmentu/s.281-B of the Act.
Counsel further submits that petitioner sentan application to the concerned authorityapprising the legal position on 17[th] March, 2010.But, the authority has not responded to theapplication, which compelled him to approach thisCourt by filing instant petition.
Without going into merits of the matter atthis stage, this court considers it appropriateto direct the petitioner to make a freshrepresentation to the concerned competentauthority within one month and the authority mayconsider and decide the same within one month,thereafter, after affording opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner, by passing a speakingorder in accordance with law. Decision whereof becommunicated to the petitioner, who if feelsaggrieved, will be free to avail remedy under thelaw.
With the above directions/observations, thewrit petition stands disposed of.
FRBOHRA4441CW10 05-04.doc
, J.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.