Wp(C)/3758/2011 Of V.ajayakumar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3758 of 2011(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.AJAYAKUMAR , VRA-A6, SREE AYSWARYA, ARIKKADAMKKU, NEMOM PO, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DEVIKRIPA, PALLIKUKKU, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (3) TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,TRIVANDRUM 695 024. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE ,5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.3914/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.3914/2011 THE COURT ON svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos. 3758 and 3914 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T---------------------- Petitioners in both these cases are brothers.Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read withSection 153A of the Income Tax Act, against the petitioners, byvirtue of Ext.P2 series orders in WP(C). 3758/11 and Ext.P2order in WP(C). 3914/11. For realising the amounts coveredunder the orders of assessment, attachments were effected onvarious items of immovable properties, belonging to thepetitioners, their wives and other family members, throughExt.P3 series notices in both the cases and p6 in WP(C).3758/11. 2.Contention of the petitioners is that the amountscovered under the assessments in both these cases will be lessthan Rs.15 lakhs each. The petitioner had approached the 1[st]respondent through various requests to release theattachments on the basis of specific offer to furnish Bankguarantee for the amounts due under the orders of assessment.Since the 1[st] respondent has not acceded to such requests,these writ petitions are filed. W.P.(C).3758 & 3914/11 3.Heard standing counsel appearing for therespondents. It is submitted that, apart from the assessments,proceedings for imposing penalty against the petitioners werealready initiated and such amounts are also to be secured.Hence despite the offer for furnishing Bank Guarantee for thetax amount assessed, the attachments could not be released, isthe contention. 4.Learned counsel for petitioner on the other handsubmitted that if attachment is continued with respect to any oneof the items of the properties, it will be sufficient to cover theprobable demand which may arise out of all the proceedings. 5.Considering the above mentioned circumstances, I amof the view that the 1[st] respondent can be directed to takeappropriate decision with respect to the request for release ofthe attachment on various items of immovable properties, on thebasis of the offer to furnish Bank Guarantee and to retainattachment in any of the items of properties which is worthenough to cover the liability on the event of penalty beingimposed. 6.Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the1[st] respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner for release of the attachment on the basis of the offer for furnishing 5.Considering the above mentioned circumstances, I amof the view that the 1[st] respondent can be directed to takeappropriate decision with respect to the request for release ofthe attachment on various items of immovable properties, on thebasis of the offer to furnish Bank Guarantee and to retainattachment in any of the items of properties which is worthenough to cover the liability on the event of penalty beingimposed. 6.Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the1[st] respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner for release of the attachment on the basis of the offer for furnishing Bank Guarantee for the demand now pending. 1[st] respondentwill consider the request and take appropriate decision, if thepetitioner furnishes the Bank Guarantee for the existingdemands. The release of the attachment can be considered afterretaining any items of properties which are sufficient to coverthe probable demand in case any penalty is imposed. 7.A decision in this regard shall be taken as early aspossible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb