W.p.(C)/12050/2016 Of Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. Director Of Income Tax (Inv)-Ii Gurgaon & Ors

$~30 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 12050/2016, CM APPL. 47633/2016 (Exemption)PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Avanish Chaurasia and Mr. Sandeep Kumar,Advs. versus DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-II GURGAON & ORS. ..... Respondent Through:Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. Jitender Singh,DDIT (Inv.), Gurgaon. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%22.12.2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of attachment of hisaccount with RBL Bank, issued by the Deputy Director of IncomeTax (Inv.)-II. The petitioner contends that the direction to the bankauthorities to freeze the petitioner’s account issued on 09.12.2016 isfully without authority of law as it is not a searched party. It is alsocontended that the petitioner was issued a notice to produce its booksof accounts only on 15.12.2016 whereas in the present case, adirection to freeze the petitioner’s account was issued on 9[th] December, 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies uponSection 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and states thatthe provision applies only in the case of a searched party. In answer to the notice, Mr. Jitender Singh, Dy. Director ofIncome Tax (Inv.)-II is appearing along with Senior Standing Counselfor the department.It is submitted that during the course ofinvestigation, the concerned officer is empowered under Section132(3) of the Act to issue directions by way of an attachment whichhas been done. It is also contended that the searched party i.e. ShriAtul Tyagi’s documents and materials reveal that the petitioner is thebeneficiaryofafewaccommodationentriesandthatasaconsequence, the attachment order is warranted. The entire text of Section 132 of the Act – including Sections132(2) & 132(3) suggest that the direction by way of an attachment ortaking other steps or seizing property or other material can be givenonly in relation to the searched person. In the circumstances, clearly adirection to the concerned bank to freeze the petitioner’s bank accountis not warranted in law. At the same time, during the course ofsubmission, it was stated by the concerned officer that obtainingnecessary direction for considering action under Section 281B of theAct or to recourse to other such power is a time consuming matter. In view of the above submissions made, this Court herebydirects the respondent to consider passing of an appropriate order inaccordance with law. For this purpose, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, if warranted, the concerned DirectorGeneral (Investigation) shall look into the matter at his earliest convenience, and ensure that appropriate orders are made within thenext five working days. This shall be without prejudice to the rightsand contentions of the petitioner in respect of the proceedings, if any,that may be initiated on a future date. Subject to these directions, theimpugned attachment order dated 09.12.2016 shall stand vacated atthe end of the working hours on 29[th]December, 2016. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.Dasti, under the signature of the Court Master. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 22, 2016/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J