| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1249 1991 SLD 1249 (1991) 187 ITR 642 |
Allahabad High Court
SMT. MAJJO B.P., JEEVEN REDDY. C.J., J.K. MATHUR, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SMT. MAJJO B.P., JEEVEN REDDY. C.J., J.K. MATHUR, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Smt. Majjo
v.
Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Provisional attachment - Petitioner put compensation amount received as a consequence of acquisition of her land by Government in a bank in form of FDRs and savings bank account, which were attached by Assistant Commissioner - Whether in view of provision of section 281B that order of attachment could last for two years which period had since expired on 19-8-1989 and petitioner was entitled to encash her money minus any tax due -Held, yes FACTS The petitioner's land was acquired by the Government and its possession was taken over on 25-3-1980. She put the compensation received by her in a bank in the form of fixed deposits and savings bank account. The Assistant Commissioner, through his letter dated 28-9-1988, attached the said accounts. On writ, the petitioner contended that an order under section 281B could not last beyond six months and that there had been no extension of the said order by the Commissioner as contemplated by sub-section (2). HELD It was clear from the record that the order under section 281B was extended by the Commissioner on 28-8-1987, 19-2-1988, 17-8-1988 and 20-12-1988. It was stated that the last order of extension was due to expire on 19-2-1989. The total period for which extension can be granted under section 281B is two years and that period had also expired on and with effect from 19-8-1989. It was, thus, clear that the attachment under section 281B could not survive beyond the said date. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to encash or withdraw the amounts concerned subject, of course, to any demand for any tax due as on the day of this . Vikram Gulati for the Petitioner. Markandeya Katju for the Respondent JUDGMENT Reddy, CJ. - The petitioner is challenging the validity of a notice issued under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. The petitioner is not a regular assessee. Her land was acquired under notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 9-5-1976. The declaration under section 6(1) of the Act was published on 4-6-1976 and the award passed over on 5-9-1984. The petitioner says that the possession ofโฆ
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492