Allahabad H.C : The petitioner is challenging the validity of a notice issued under s. 281B of the IT Act, 1961.

High Court Of Allahabad

Smt. Majjo vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Section 281B

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. & J.K. Mathur, J.

Civil Misc. WP No. 40 of 1989

23rd July, 1990

Counsel Appeared

Vikram Gulati, for the Petitioner : Markandeya Katju, for the Respondent


The petitioner is challenging the validity of a notice issued under s. 281B of the IT Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner is not a regular assessee. Her land was acquired under a notification issued under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 9th May, 1976. The declaration under s. 6(1) was published on 4th June, 1976, and the award passed on 5th Sept., 1984. The petitioner says that possession of land was taken on 25th March, 1980. According to law, it is that date on which the property passes to the Government. The petitioner is, however, not in a position to state when she actually received the compensation. Be that as it may, it appears that she put the compensation received by her in a bank in the form of fixed deposits and in a savings bank account, namely, in the Allahabad Bank, Tejgarhi, Meerut. On 1st Dec., 1988, the bank informed the petitioner that the said FDR and SB account has been attached by the Asstt.CIT, Circle II, Meerut, through his letter dt. 28th Sept., 1988. The petitioner came to this Court by way of a writ petition on 9th Jan., 1989.

The contention is that an order under s. 281B cannot last beyond six months and that there has been no extension of the said order by the CIT as contemplated by sub-s. (2). Though a formal counter has not been filed by the respondents. Mr. Markandey Katju, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, has placed before us a copy of the instructions received by him. The instructions state that the said order was extended by the CIT on 28th Aug., 1987, 19th Feb., 1988, 17th Aug., 1988, and 20th Dec., 1988. It is stated that the last order of extension is due to expire on 19th Feb., 1989.

Mr. Vikram Gulati submitted that those orders of extension have not been communicated to him which is obligatory under the law. He also says that the reasons have not been recorded for such extension.

We do not, however, think it necessary to examine the said contention for the reason that the total period for which extensions can be granted under s. 281B is two years and that period has also expired on and with 19th Aug., 1989. It is thus clear that the attachment under s. 281B cannot survive beyond the said date, namely, beyond 19th Aug., 1989. The petitioner shall be entitled to encash or withdraw the amounts concerned subject, of course, to any demand the amount equal to such demand for any tax due as on today. Even if there is any such demand the amount equal to such demand shall be retained and the remaining amount returned to the petitioner.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

A copy of this order may be communicated to the Allahabad Bank, Tejgarhi, Meerut.

[Citation : 187 ITR 642]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security