Orissa High Court
M/S. Nabajuga Educational And vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 30 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9128 of 2025
M/s. Nabajuga Educational and .... Petitioner
Charitable Trust, Khorda
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate
Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.C. Mohanty
Senior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 30th April, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is
the notice issued by the Department under Section 226(3) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby and whereunder the amounts held
by the petitioner with several banks were freezed obviously in
contemplation to recover and/or relax the amount quantified in the
said notice.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the proceeding was initiated
by the Department against the petitioner upon disallowing certain
depreciation which it claimed as an organization who avails the
benefit of the provision of exemption provided under Section 11 of
the said Act. The proceeding ended at the domain of the Assessing
Officer (AO) and the order is assailed by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority (AA). Undeniably, the said appeal is pending,
meaning thereby the final adjudication has not been taken as of now.
Amidst the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the notice of
attachment to recover 20% of the total demand is issued, which
according to the petitioner, is in excess of the powers conferred upon
the authorities.
3. It is a specific stand taken by the petitioner in the instant
writ petition that the Assistant Commissioner lags complete
jurisdiction and powers to adjudicate upon the assessment order
which is per se illegal, akin to a nullity.
4. We do not venture to enter into such arena as the statutory
appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Appellate
Authority and all such plea, which is either raised in the instant writ
petition or otherwise available, both on facts and law, if agitated
before the Appellate Authority, shall be considered and decided on
its own merits.
5. We restrict our consideration in the instant writ petition on
the amount of demand quantified in the said notice and whether such
quantified amount can be sufficiently protected by interfering with
the steps having been taken by the Department in freezing all the
bank accounts of the petitioner.
6. We have been given a chart in course of the hearing at the
behest of the petitioner, indicating the amount available in different
bank accounts maintained by the petitioner in several banks. It
admits no ambiguity in law that the authority cannot proceed to take
action in excess of the demand by freezing all the bank accounts.
The demand is already quantified in the said notice and, therefore, it
is inconceivable that the authorities would attach the bank accounts
which contain the balance much above the quantified amount
covered under the said notice. We have given to understand that two
bank accounts, where the fixed deposits are maintained, would cater
the said quantified amount demanded in the said notice and,
therefore, there is no justification in attaching or freezing the
operation of the other bank accounts.
7. We found that the fixed deposits with the Union Bank of
India under the FD Nos.149613030000281 and 149613030000287
covering an amount of Rs.11,58,414.00 and Rs.14,54,146.00 as on
31st March, 2024 are sufficient enough to cater the quantified
demand under the said notice.
8. Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel on
instruction from the learned Advocate on record for the petitioner
submits that though the maturity amount of the aforesaid fixed
deposits is shown as 31st March, 2024 but under the instruction of
auto renewal, the same has been renewed and is still lying with the
bank.
9. Going by the submissions advanced before us and believing
the same to be correct and true instructions received by learned
counsel for the petitioner, we therefore, direct the Department to
issue instructions to the respective banks, where the accounts held by
the petitioner have been attached, to remove such attachments except
to the extent that the aforesaid fixed deposits, mentioned
hereinabove, shall remain attached and shall not be permitted to be
withdrawn, until a specific order is passed by the Appellate
Authority in the pending appeal.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-May-2025 18:20:31
