AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. P.A.S. Pati and Mr. Rahul Lamba for Income Tax Department.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the letter dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent no. 4 whereunder petitioner no. 2 has been declared to
be 'assessee in default' and directed to appear in person in the office of concerned respondent. Petitioners have also prayed that action of the
respondent department attaching the cash credit account of respondent no. 5 maintained with the petitioner bank being cash credit account no.
10687248050, be declared as wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, in order to support the challenge, tried to draw the attention of this Court on the merits of the case primarily
on the plea that attachment of cash credit account would not be sustainable in the eyes of law since in such a case, the bank does not become a
debtor. Certain decisions have also sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in support.
A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the respondent - Income Tax Department Mr. Rahul Lamba has straightaway
taken the objection of maintainability of this writ petition in the face of alternative remedy provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has, in
particular, made reference to Section 226 sub-section 3(vii) where the assessing officer or the tax recovery officer has been conferred the power to
amend or revoke any notice issued in this sub-section or extend the time for making any payment in pursuance of such notice at any time or from time
to time. Learned counsel has also referred to Section 264 of the Act of 1961 which confers revisional power upon the Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner to call for the record of any proceeding under this Act either on his own motion or on an application by the assessee for a revision and
either make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made for passing an order thereupon, as he may deem fit, not being an order prejudicial to the
assessee. The revisional power is hedged with certain conditions prescribed therein. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition is fit to
be dismissed as petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy available to them in a case of such nature.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioners to
avail of the alternative remedy under the law, if permissible.