Jignesh Kishorebhai Bhajiawala v. Income Tax Dept

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4411 of 2018With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4777 of 2018 =============================================================JIGNESH KISHOREBHAI BHAJIAWALA VersusINCOME TAX DEPT ============================================================= Appearance : Mr NITIN MEHTA for Mr CHETAN K PANDYA, Advocates for the PETITIONERSMRS MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 ============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA18[th] September 2018andHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA18[th] September 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These petitions arise in the common background. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 4411 of 2018. The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 2[nd ] January 2017 issued by the respondent no. 1-Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [Investigation]-II, Surat written to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Udhana Branch, Surat in which, he conveyed as under : “2.A summons under Section 131 of the I.T Act issued on 17.12.2016 which was served upon you., In response to the summons 17.12.2016 which was served upon you., In response to the summons you have submitted details of PPF account held by Bhaijiawala family with your Branch. 3.You are requested not to allow these persons to operate the same without getting clearance from the undersigned. You are again requested to please verify fixed deposit/account/ cash certificate or saving bank accounts if any held by these persons; if any, and also not to allow operate. List of the PPF accounts held by Bhajiawala family in your branch is enclosed herewith as annexure.” Case of the petitioner is brief. According to him, the Income- tax authorities cannot attach the petitioner’s Public Provident Fund account. Impugned communication therefore should be struck down. Such action is taken in case of the petitioner’s family members also. Hence, two petitions. Learned advocate Ms. Mauna Bhatt appeared for the Department. She has filed an affidavit dated 24[th] August 2018. She has submitted that during the period of demonetization of currency, the petitioner had deposited cash amounts which are being verified by the Department through assessment proceedings. To secure interest of the Revenue, impugned communication was issued. She sought to explain that the said communication does not amount to attachment of the petitioners’ PPF accounts. Plain reading of the communication shows that the Bank was asked not to allow the holders of the accounts to operate the same without clearance from the Income-tax authorities. In whatever language stated, in clear terms this amounts to attachment of the petitioners’ PPF accounts. It was for this reason, we have to pass an interim order dated 27[th] March 2018 permitting the petitioners to deposit minimum amount of Rs. 500/= in the said accounts to keep the accounts alive, since the last date of the financial year ie., 31[st] March 2018 was fast approaching. Counsel for the respondent did not dispute that it was outside the authority of the Department to attach the PPF accounts of the petitioners. She only tried to convey that the impugned communication does not amount to attachment, which theory we had already nugated. Under the circumstances, following sentence in the impugned communication dated 2[nd] January 2017 is rescinded. “You are requested not to allow these persons to operate the same without getting clearance from the undersigned.” Rest of the directions in the letter to continue. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. [Akil Kureshi, J.] Prakash [B.N Karia, J.]