Delhi High Court
Bikram Singh vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 February, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th February, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 1961/2015
BIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.K.Mittal and Mr.Rajveer Singh,
Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal Sr.Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. Issue notice.
2. Ms.Suruchi Aggawal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by a letter issued to the Oriental Bank of
Commerce dated 24.02.2015, by which the bank was required under
Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred "the
Act"), to release an amount of `1,67,16,160/- (plus interest) payable to the
respondent/Income Tax Department pursuant to the assessment completed
on 13.03.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
WP(C) No1961/2015 Page | 1
4. The relevant facts are that the petitioner's assessment returns for the
AY 2011-12 were considered and order made, pursuant to which the
Assessing Officer (AO) brought to tax a sum of `4,39,71,545/-. Whilst
doing so the AO added a sum of `3,25,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act,
after holding that the explanation furnished by the assessee was
unacceptable. The assessee/writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the CIT
(Appeals) on 07.04.2014, which is pending.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the AO issued demand under
Section 156 of the Act claiming the tax dues. The assessee sought for stay
of the demand under Section 220(6). The concerned officer, Deputy
Commissioner Income Tax, on 03.02.2015 communicated that, unless 50%
of the demand was complied with and the corresponding amount not
deposited, even the stay application cannot be entertained. In this ground
eventually on the petitioner's failure to deposit the said sum, the impugned
order more in the nature of a garnishee order was made requiring the bank
to makeover and pay a sum of `1,67,16,160/- and restrictions have been
imposed on withdrawal from petitioner's account.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that
at this stage we cannot express any opinion on the merits of the appeal
and/or feasibility of the demand. At the same time, the Court is not
oblivious to the circumstance that if any order is made, the
assessee/petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss. Balancing the
hardship, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent should vacate the
garnishee order/letter to the extent of 50%, keeping in mind the condition
imposed in the letter dated 03.02.2015. In other words, the bank is directed
to - within next four days ensure that the letter addressed to the bank on
WP(C) No1961/2015 Page | 2
24.02.2015 is withdrawn and a suitable letter directing the payment of half
the amount is issued at the same time. Consequently, the assessee and the
bank would be at liberty to service the petitioner's account to the extent of
the balance. The CIT (Appeals) is directed to hear and consider the matter
on the merits and render final decision thereon at the earliest preferably in
four months from today. This arrangement shall be applicable till the
disposal of the appeal by CIT (Appeals).
7. It is open to the petitioner to deposit the corresponding amount of
50% of the sum (i.e. `1,67,16,160/-) demanded with the Income Tax
Department and seek necessary variation.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
mr
WP(C) No1961/2015 Page | 3
