Wp/626/2010 Of Kanak Gold Jewels v. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) And 3 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 Kanak Gold Jewels ..Petitioner. V/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation)Unit 1, Kolkata ..Respondent. Ms. Beena Pillai for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 19TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The petitioner is carrying on business of importing, exporting trading and manufacturing of Diamonds. The petitioner is assessed to tax at Surat. The petitioner has inter alia a bank account at Mumbai. 2.On 12/11/2009 search action was conducted at the premises of Shri M.M. Daga at 3, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata by the income tax authorities at Kolkata. During the course of search, it was found that Shri M.M. Daga was an entry operator who was maintaining several bank accounts at various places to transfer unaccounted money through banking channels. On the basis of the seized materials, prohibitory order was issued under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the bank account of the petitioner at Mumbai. It appears that on 5/1/2010 the Tax Authorities at Kolkata revoked the prohibitory order after collecting amount of Rs.1,00,64,598/- from the said bank account of the petitioner at Mumbai. 3.The grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the tax authorities at Kolkata and made representations to lift the attachment and return the money collected from the bank account of the petitioner. However, no action has been taken so far to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and no reasons were given as to why the bank account of the petitioner has been attached. It is contended that even the tax authorities at Surat have not taken any steps in this regard in spite of repeated representation made by the petitioner. 4.In the present case, the tax authorities at Kolkata have attached the bank account of the petitioner at Mumbai and collected the amount lying in the said bank account. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the authorities at Kolkata seeking appropriate reliefs in the matter. If the tax authorities at Kolkata have not responded to the 3 wp626-10 representation made by the petitioner, the remedy is to move the higher authorities or the Courts at Kolkata and not at Mumbai. The fact that the tax authorities at Kolkata have collected amounts from the bank account of the petitioner at Mumbai, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai, so as to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to issue a writ to the tax authorities at Kolkata. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)