Wa/100281/2019 Of Smt.manju v. Income Tax Officer W 1 (1)

an in IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH ON THE 29 DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA | AND _ THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR| W.A. NO.100281/2019#& W.A. NO.100491/2019 (TIT) BETWEEN: SMI.MANJULAW/O ANILKUMAR BHURAT,AGE: 50 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD,BHURAT BUILDING,SHETTAR CHAWL,HIREPETH, HUBBALLI-580028,AADHAR NO. , |PAN: ABRPB4398]. ~.. APPELLANT (BY SRI.MANOJ D. PUKALE,SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR &SRI.PRAKAS R. BADIGER, ADVS.)| AND 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER W1(1),.1 FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR,HUBBALLI-5SS0025,EMAIL-HUBLI.ITOL.L@INCOME TAX.GOV.IN> * Os 2. BRANCH MANAGER|STATE BANK OF INDIA,PRESENT ADDRESS: |JAVALI CHAMBERS,DAJIBANPETRH,HUBBALLI-580028.STATE BANK OF INDIA,PRESENT ADDRESS: |JAVALI CHAMBERS,DAJIBANPETRH,HUBBALLI-580028. a. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1 &SRI.B.MUHAMMED ALI, ADV. FOR R2)_ THESEWRIT|APPEALSARE|FILEDUNDERSECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYINGTHIS HON’BLE COURT THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWEDBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019PASSED BY JHE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRITPETITION NQOQ.1060/08 OF 2019 AND WRIT PETITINO.106849 OF 2019 (T-IT) AND ASCERTAIN THEVARACITYOF|DATE,TIMEAND.MODEOF|BANK|ATTACHMENT, TAX COLLECTION AND LIFTING THEATTACHMENT: A) AS AVERRED BY R11 IN STATEMENTOF OBJECTIONS DATED 25.03.2019 IN WP AND ETC. THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,THIS.DAY,K N.PHANEENDRAJ.,DELIVEREDTHE|FOLLOWING: ° 3: JUDGMENT The appellant nas called in question the orderpassed Dy the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition|No.106/08/2019andWritPetitionNo.106849/2019(T-IT) ON|25.03.2019,(questioning the impugned order dated 13.02.2019|passed by the respondent as per Annexure - D) in|not|directing|tne|respondent|CO|transfer§tne|amount back to tne account of the petitioner, and|thereafter consider the stay application submitted|by tne respondent. 2. Tnesnort.question.tnat|arisefor.consideration is that, tne writ Court has come to'tne conclusion that the order passed by the!respondent.On|13.07.7019|WaSagainsttne|principles of natural justice in extracting the)money from tne account of tne petitioner before|tne writ Court, witnout providing any opportunity|to the writ petitioner to submit with reference to' “4s nis stay application and also disposing of tne stayapplication witnout nearing tne writ petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent.strenuously contends tnat, the demand notice was/issued to the writ petitioner by the respondent on28.12.2018 under Section 156 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for!Short). He filed stay application on 15.01.2019|and the stay application was disposed of on/13.02.7019.Thereafter,On|18.02.2019,tne|attacnment of tne amount tn the account of tne.petitioner was made particularly after issuance ofnotice py the writ Court. The said amount wasactually extracted on 19.03.2019. Tne learned|counsel for the respondent submits that after!lapse of 30 days from 28.12.2018, the appellant.becomes assessee in default under Section 2270 oftne Act. Therefore, the extraction of the money by|the respondent is not illegal, but disposal of the! stay application without nearing him may be anéirregularity committed by the Officer. The learned.counsel for the respondent further submits that,|mere filing of the stay application will not in anymanner extend the period fixed under Section 220.of the Act. © stay application without nearing him may be anéirregularity committed by the Officer. The learned.counsel for the respondent further submits that,|mere filing of the stay application will not in anymanner extend the period fixed under Section 220.of the Act. © 4. Having heard the learned counsels, thougpnthe writ Court has disposed of the matter setting.aside the order dated 13.02.2019, no order nas'been passed with reference to the irregularity or.the illegality committed by tne respondent. Of|course, though it may not extend the time morethan 30 days according to Section 220 of the Act,but the conduct of the respondent shows that.though stay application was filed on 15.01.2019|til) 13.02.2019 no orders Nave been passed, no!documents were furnished as sought for by the.petitioner. Therefore, virtually it is the conduct of °* 6: the Officer wnich made the petitioner as anéassessee in default. Therefore, undertheanpoveSal|circumstances,In.OUT|Opinion,tne|amount|whatever extracted by the respondent from the!account of the _ petitioner ito perestored,however in order to protect the interest of therespondent also, we put a rider on tne appellant.that after the said amount is reversed to the.account of the petitioner, he should not transfer or|withdraw tne said amount pending disposal of the!proceedings.pefore|tne|respondent.TneSalcdamount shall be kept in No Lien Account by tnerespondent No.2 Bank. Witn tnese observations, tne respondent No.1|is nereby directed to furnisn the documents assougnt|for|DY thepetitioner|andalsoDdss appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner inaccordance witn law. In view of disposal of these appeals on'merits, T A..No.1/2019does|not|SUrVIVeEfor.consideration. | Rsh Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE