Wp/30061/2018 Of M/S.bell Tower Enterprises v. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Inv)-4(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABUWrit Petition Nos.30061 30067 & 30086 of 2018and W.M.P.Nos.35075, 35082 & 35099 of 2018 M/s.Bell Tower Enterprises LLPA Limited Liability PartnershipRepresented by its PartnerMr.P.Anandhaving its office atNo.87, Dr.Alagappa Road, A-3Maruti Apartments, Purasaiwalkam Chennai - 600084 ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.30061 & 30067 of 2018 M/s. Sayso Exim Private LimitedA Private Limited CompanyRepresented by its DirectorMr.I.Prabhakaranhaving its office at56 A/1, Pilliyar koil street, Tondiarpet,Chennai – 600081 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.30086of 2018 1. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) -4(1) Investigation Wing 46/108, Nungambakkam High Road 2. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. No.2, P.S.Sivaswamy Salai, Chennai – 600004. ...2[nd] Respondent in W.P.No.30061 of 2018 3. M/s.IndusInd Bank Ltd., New No.5/6, Old No.3/2, Swethambar Building, New No.5/6, Old No.3/2, Swethambar Building, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017. ...3[rd] Respondent in W.P.No.30061& 2[nd] Respondent in W.P.No.30086 of 2018 4. M/s Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Teynampet Branch 568, Ground Floor, KVB Towers, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018. ... 4[th] Respondent in W.P.No.30061 & 3[rd] Respondent in W.P.No.30086 of 2018 Prayer in W.P.No.30061/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file ofthe first respondent in F.No:DDIT/U-4(1)/SCL/132(9B)/2017-18/4in issuing the warrant for attachment of properties underSection 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.02.2018 andquash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit andconsequently direct the first respondent to lift the attachmentof the bank accounts of the petitioner lying with the second,third and fourth respondents.Prayer in W.P.No.30067/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file ofthe respondent in F.No:DDIT/U-4(1)/SCL-BTELLP/132(9B)/2017-18/1in issuing the warrant for attachment of properties underSection 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.02.2018 andquash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit andconsequently direct the respondent to lift the attachment of thelands belonging to the petitioner.Prayer in W.P.No.30086/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file ofthe first respondent in F.No:DDIT/U-4(1)/SCL/132(9B)/2017-18/1in issuing the warrant for attachment of properties underSection 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.02.2018 andquash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit andconsequently direct the first respondent to lift the attachmentof the bank accounts of the petitioner lying with the second andthird respondents.For Petitioners in all the W.Ps. : Mr.R.SivaramanFor 1[st] Respondents in all the W.Ps. : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER All these writ petitions are filed challenging theattachment of properties under section 132(9B) of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 2. In W.P.No.30061/2018, the first respondent, by way of theimpugned proceedings dated 07.02.2018, attached three bankaccounts held by the petitioner. In W.P.No.30067 of 2018, theimpugned order dated 26.02.2018 attached the immovableproperties of the petitioner. In W.P.No.30086 of 2018, theimpugned order dated 07.02.2018, attached the bank account heldby the petitioner therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER All these writ petitions are filed challenging theattachment of properties under section 132(9B) of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 2. In W.P.No.30061/2018, the first respondent, by way of theimpugned proceedings dated 07.02.2018, attached three bankaccounts held by the petitioner. In W.P.No.30067 of 2018, theimpugned order dated 26.02.2018 attached the immovableproperties of the petitioner. In W.P.No.30086 of 2018, theimpugned order dated 07.02.2018, attached the bank account heldby the petitioner therein. 3. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.30061 and 30067 of 2018 is oneand the same, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.30086 of 2018, isa different person. Since these writ petitions are filedchallenging the provisional order of attachment made undersection 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act,1961, passed by the firstrespondent, without seeking any relief against the otherrespondents/Banks and considering the fact that these writpetitions can be disposed of, based on the pleadings raised bythe petitioner and the contesting first respondent alone, moreparticularly, when the other respondents/banks are arrayed onlyas formal parties, notice to those respondents are dispensedwith. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the impugnedattachment proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed asthey do not have legs to stand after the expiry of a period ofsix months from the date of the order, as contemplated undersub-clause 9C of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Therefore, it is contended by Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel forthe petitioner that the impugned orders are liable to be setaside, since the Bank officials are not allowing the petitionersto operate the respective bank accounts and to deal with theimmovable properties, which are the subject matter of attachmentin W.P.Nos.30061, 30067 and 30086 of 2018. Learned counsel forthe petitioner, after inviting this Court's attention tosection 132(9B) and (9C) of the Income Tax Act, thus, submittedthat the impugned orders are to be declared illegal. 5. A separate counter affidavit is filed in each case.Though the counter affidavit has dealt with in detail as to thecircumstances under which the impugned order of attachment cameto be passed, this Court is not inclined to refer to thosecontentions, for the simple reason that point to be consideredin these writ petitions is as to whether these impugnedprovisional attachment orders have any life after the period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ six months from the date of the order, in view of the specificperiod of its effectiveness as provided under section 132(9C).Answer to the above question raised by the petitioners isavailable in the counter by stating that the provisionalattachment of the bank accounts and on the properties referredtherein under section 132(9B) ceased to have effect after aperiod of six months which was on 07.08.2018 and 25.08.2018respectively and thus, no action is required to be taken as thegiven section does not mandate issue of any certificate andthe provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 are in the public domain. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent submitted that since sub-section 9C of Section 132 isin clear and categorical terms refers that every provisionalattachment made under sub section 9B of section 132, shall ceaseto have effect after the period of six months from the date ofthe order, the very prayer sought for in these writ petitionshave become infructuous. 7. Heard both sides. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent submitted that since sub-section 9C of Section 132 isin clear and categorical terms refers that every provisionalattachment made under sub section 9B of section 132, shall ceaseto have effect after the period of six months from the date ofthe order, the very prayer sought for in these writ petitionshave become infructuous. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Though these writ petitions are filed to quash theimpugned provisional attachment orders made under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as illegal, arbitrary anddevoid of merits with the consequential prayer for a directionto the first respondent to lift the attachment of the bankaccounts, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits ofthe impugned attachment and find out as to whether suchattachment was validly made or not, for the simple reason thatconsidering such question does not arise now, since, as ontoday, the very impugned attachment itself ceased to have effectafter the expiry of a period of six months from the date of thesaid order in view of Section 132(9C), which reads as follows: (9C)Every provisional attachment made under sub-section (9B) shall cease to have effect after theexpiry of a period of six months from the date of theorder referred to in sub-section (9B). 9. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for thefirst respondent that so far no fresh attachment is made underany other provision of Income Tax Act in pursuant to theimpugned attachment proceedings. When such being the factualposition, the fact remains that the impugned attachmentproceedings have already become infructuous, as the time for itsexistence namely six months has already expired on 07.08.2018and 25.08.2018, as admitted by the first respondent himself inthe counter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in these writpetitions, these writ petitions are disposed of by observingthat the impugned attachment proceedings ceased to have anyeffect on and from 07.08.2018 and 25.08.2018 respectively ascontemplated under section 132(9C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar //True copy//Sub Assistant Registrarvsi/sniTo1. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) -4(1) Investigation Wing 46/108, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600034. +3cc to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate SR.No.83597+1cc to Mr.King & Partridge, Advocate SR.No.82722+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No.82668W.P.No.30061, 30067 & 30086 of 2018GMY(14/12/2018)