The High Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging a lapsed provisional attachment order under Section 281B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent filed status indicating the order had expired after 60 days.
The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2016
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.7982 to 7985 of 2015
Kiruthiga T.M.R. .. Petitioner in WP.No.7982/2015 Thirumalaiammal .. Petitioner in WP.No.7983/2015 Kalaiselvi T.M.R. .. Petitioner in WP.No.7984/2015 Bharaneetharan T.M.R. .. Petitioner in WP.No.7985/2015
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - II, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. .. Respondent in all W.Ps.
Common Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Provisional Attachment orders vide in proceedings No.ADOPR7424C/CC-2/CBE/2014-15 dated 25.02.2015.
For Petitioners... Mr.S.Feroz Khan
For Respondent ... Mr.P.Rajkumar Jhabulah
ORDER
Heard Mr.S.Feroz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2.The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 25.02.2015 which is a provisional attachment order under Section 281B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was to operate for a period of 60 days from the date of completion of assessment with effect from the date of the order i.e. on 25.02.2015.
3.When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 02.06.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the provisional attachment order has not been extended beyond the period stated in the impugned order. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/department, sought time to get
instruction in the matter and today, he has got instruction to state that the impugned provisional attachment order has not been extended beyond the period of 60 days mentioned therein and as such, as on date, the order stands lapsed.
4.Recording the said submission, the Writ Petitions stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sgl
To
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle - II,
Race Course Road,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
1 cc to Mr.T. Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate, Sr. 31149
W.P.Nos.7982 to 7985 of 2015
EV (CO)
kk 21/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging the lapsed provisional attachment order require adjudication.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kiruthiga T.M.R.
Thirumalaiammal
Kalaiselvi T.M.R.
Bharaneetharan T.M.R.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - II, Race Course Road, Coimbatore
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
