Ritu Raj Garg v. Deputy Cqmmissioner Of Income Tax

220IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH he fCWP-26246-2019DECIDED ON:FEBRUARY 18, 2020 RITU RAJ GARG VERSUS PETITIONER DEPUTY CQMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with|Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counselfor the respondent. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): """" By this petition, petitioner has challenged the provisionalattachment of the property. ?DThe facts are that originally the property in question was in thejoint names of the petitioner and her husband. On 17.01.2018 the husband ofthe petitioner transferred his 50% share of the property in the name of thepetitioner. On 06.06.2018, a search was conducted and at that time theproperty was provisionally attached as per the original ownership of 50:50 (‘in the name of the petitioner and ’% in the name of her husband) 3,The first argument of the learned Senior counsel for thepetitioner is that once it was admitted that the property was transferred muchbefore the search it could not have been attached in the name of the previousOwrn»ie CWP-26246-2019 4Learned counsel for the revenue sought to argue that the transferwas fraudulent but has accepted that no proceedings have been initiatedunder Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act'). In thecircumstances the stand cannot be accepted and it has to be held that at thetime of search the property was in the ownership of the petitioner and,therefore, its provisional attachment is deemed to be in the hands of thepetitioner. © .Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that once the issue ofownership of the property and in whose hands it could be provisionallyattached has been clarified, the fact is that subsequently the assessment has|been finalized and consequently the provisional attachment cannot continue,Learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to deny this factualaspect also. | 6 Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed thatfirst property be treated to have been provisionally attached in the name ofthe petitioner and secondly provisional attachment has come to an end afterthe passing of the assessment order, while giving liberty to the respondent toproceed under Section 281 of the Act, if so advised. IAJAY TEWARI]JUDGE