Wp/855/2006 Of Nadira Begum v. Commissioner Income Tax And Ors

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE[CHHATTISGARH:][ BILASPUR] SINGLE BENCH:HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Writ PetitionNo. 855 of 2006. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Present:Shri Ali Asgar, Iearned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Am'It Chnudhary, learned counsel for respondents[ 1] & 2.Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER(Passed [on][ 14‘]September, 2006) The dispute brought beforethisCourt doesnot merit public lawreview under Article 226 oi’ the Constitution of India.The facts are Simple.It appears that against the husbandof thepetitioner,proceedings[were]initiated by the Assessing Authority to recover the income tax dues.Thepetitioner[had][ invested][ a][ sum][ of][ RS.][ 40,000l-][ in][ Vikas][ Cash][ Certiticate](E-789625/3337) dated O5.0€.1992.When the proceedings initiated againstthe husband were pending,the petitioner made arepresentationto theCommissioner of Income Tax-2,Bhilai on 18.12.2003.lt appears that inthe course of searchof the dwelling premises of the petitioner and herhusband, the above certificate was seized andit was in the custody of the Assessing Authority.In the aboverepresentationthepetitioner[sought]returnofthecertificate.Atthesametime,thepetitionerinanunmistakable term toid the Commissioner,[Income][ Tax-2,]Bhilai that shewas seeking encashment of the certificate[ in] order[to][ help][ her][ husband][ in]paying[the][ income][ Tax][ dues][ to][ the][ lncome][ Tax][ Department][ by][ encashing]the certificate.It appears that the department bona fidebelieving that thepetitioner[wanted][ to][ encash][ the][ Vikas][ Cash][ Certificate][ in][ order][ to][ pay][ the]incometaxduestotheincomeTaxdepartmentbyherhusband,fowvarded the certificate to the bank concerned[for][ encashing][ the][ same]and to adjust towards the tax[ Iiabiiity] of[her][ husband.]When the matterstoodthus,thiswritpetitionisfiledcomplainingthattheAssessingAuthorityisnotjustifiedinencashingtheVikasCashCertificateandadjustingthemoneytowardsthetaxliabilityofherhusband.Thedirection to therespondentstorelease thepetitioner[has][ sought][ for][ a]amount under the Vikas Cash Certificate[to][ her.] (2)Thewritpetitionis opposedby therespondents byfilingreturns.In the return filed on behalf of the department,itis stated thatsincethepetitionerherselfinher representationto theCommissioner,Income Tax-2, Bhilai, sought release of the money under the certificate[ in]ordertopaytheincometaxduesonbehalfofherhusba‘t’td,thedepartmentwasjustifiedinrealizingtheamountunderVikasCashCertificate and adjusting the same towards the tax[liability] of her husband. (3)l heard learned counsel for the parties.It was contended bythe learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the letter of thepetitionertotheCommissioner of Income Tax-2,Bhilai,the AssessingAuthorityoughtnothaveencahsedthecertmcateandadjustedtherealizedmoney towardstaxliabilityofherhusband,andshedidnot Bini* (2)Thewritpetitionis opposedby therespondents byfilingreturns.In the return filed on behalf of the department,itis stated thatsincethepetitionerherselfinher representationto theCommissioner,Income Tax-2, Bhilai, sought release of the money under the certificate[ in]ordertopaytheincometaxduesonbehalfofherhusba‘t’td,thedepartmentwasjustifiedinrealizingtheamountunderVikasCashCertificate and adjusting the same towards the tax[liability] of her husband. (3)l heard learned counsel for the parties.It was contended bythe learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the letter of thepetitionertotheCommissioner of Income Tax-2,Bhilai,the AssessingAuthorityoughtnothaveencahsedthecertmcateandadjustedtherealizedmoney towardstaxliabilityofherhusband,andshedidnot Bini* authorize the Income Tax Department to do in the way the department did.l do not find any merit in the contention.In theIetter addressed to theCommissioner of Income Tax-2,Bhilai, the petitioner in an unmistakabietermstatedthatshewasseekingencashmentoftheVikasCashCertificate in order to help her husband in paying the Income tax dues.Ofcourse, there was no legal obligation on the part of the petitioner to helpher husband by paying her own money in clearing the income tax dues ofher husband.If the petitioner understandably andvoluntarily wanted toihelp her husband and requested the Income Tax department to permit herto encash the Vikas Cash Certificate in order to clear the income tax duesof her husband,it could not be said that the department acted illegally orarbitrarily in taking the steps to fonNard the Vikas Cash Certificate to thebank concerned andrealizing the amountunder the said certificate andadjusting the same towards tax liability of the petitioner’s husband.It isnot the case andit cannot be the case of the petitioner that even afteradjusting the realized money towards tax liability any amount wasleft tobepaidrtothepetitioner.Inthecourseofhearing,learnedstandingcounselfortheIncomeTaxdepartmentShriAmitChoudharywouldsubmitthatevenaftertheadjustmentofthemoney,thepetitioner’shusband has yet to pay a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- towards the remaining taxliability.Be that asit may,it is not for this Court to decide whether anymoneyleftafter adjustment to whichthepetitionerisentitledtoclaim.These are the issues that can properly be thrashed out in a suit before thejurisdictional[civil][ Court][ or][ by][ making][ appropriate][ representation][ to][ Income]TaxAuthorities.Thewritpetitionisdismissedsubjecttotheaboveobservations.No costs.lSd/—Chief[Justice]I