Jayanthi Babu Iyer v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1

1 / 3 03-WP-3591-19.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3591 OF 2019 Jayanthi Babu Iyer .... Petitioner versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1... Respondent….... Ms.Ritika Agarwal a/w Ms.Deepti Jethva i/b. ACE Legal, Advocate for Petitioner.Ms.Ritika Agarwal a/w Ms.Deepti Jethva i/b. ACE Legal, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Sham Walve, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Sham Walve, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.: 25[th] MARCH, 2019. DATE P.C. : 1. The Petitioner is an individual. She has challenged the action of income-tax department in initiating coerciverecoveries of the tax arising out of her assessment dated23/11/2018. The case of the Petitioner is that the additions are made by the Assessing Officer on entirely erroneous grounds,ignoring the Petitioner's contention that the flats were sold bythe developer of the land who had also shown the sale proceeds 2 / 3 03-WP-3591-19.odt out of such sale in the return. Despite this, the Assessing Officerpassed the order of assessment making additions in the hands ofthe assessee. The assessee thereupon filed application forrectification of the order of assessment. She also filed Appealbefore the Appellate Commissioner. Pending such proceedings,she requested for stay of recovery. The Assessing Officerattached her bank account and has already withdrawn a sum ofRs.17,110/- which was the total balance in her account. 2. Appearing for the department, the learned CounselMr.Sham Walve stated on instructions that the attachment of thebank account has been removed. The principal Commissionershall dispose of the Petitioner's application for stay pendingAppeal. The Assessing Officer shall also dispose of herapplication for rectification expeditiously. 3. In view of such statement, only direction that needs tobe issued is to return the sum or money withdrawn by thedepartment from the Petitioner's bank account ,which account isbe issued is to return the sum or money withdrawn by thedepartment from the Petitioner's bank account ,which account is 3 / 3 03-WP-3591-19.odt in violation of the judgment of this Court and in particular incase of UTI Mutual Fund Vs. Income-tax Officer & Ors.,reported in (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom). 4. The Petition is therefore disposed of with following directions; (i)The department shall act in consonance with thestatement of the department's Counsel.statement of the department's Counsel. (ii)The Respondent shall return the amount withdrawn from the Petitioner's bank account through attachment. (iii)There shall be no coercive recovery till PrincipalCommissionerdecidesthePetitioner'sCommissionerdecidesthePetitioner's application for stay, pending Appeal. (iv)Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)