G.Raju vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income … on 23 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25532 of 2009(J)


1. G.RAJU, `KARTHIKA',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :23/09/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

                    ------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.25532 OF 2009
                    ------------------------------

         Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009


                        J U D G M E N T

———————-

1. Petitioner had approached this court aggrieved by

Ext.P5 order by which property of 7 Acres Rubber Estate

situated in Mancode Village comprised under Survey Nos:495/1,

496/4, 496/5, 496/6, and 496/7 as well as Fixed Deposit

amounting to Rs.20 lakhs in Canara Bank, Chalai branch,

Thiruvananthapuram, were provisionally attached by the 1st

respondent, pending finalisation of assessment of Income Tax

due with respect to the year 2008-09. It is submitted that during

the relevant year the petitioner had sale transactions of

immovable property which will attract considerable amount of

Capital Gain Tax. But according to the petitioner such gains

were deposited in Capital Gain Account and re-invested in

purchasing agricultural lands, and therefore the tax liability will

be reduced considerably. Therefore the attachment is

unwarranted and creating severe prejudices.

2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the

respondents on instructions submitted that steps have already

been taken to release provisional attachment effected against

W.P.(C).25532/09 2

the Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and the same will be

released without any further delay. With respect to the

provisional attachment effected against the immovable

properties, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that he is ready and willing to offer another property

situated at Kadakampally Village in Thiruvananthapuram District

by way of security, in lieu of the property already attached.

Hence he is seeking directions for permitting substitution of the

security. It is for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent in

this regard and the 1st respondent will consider permitting

substitution of the security by another immovable property, if

so approached, without any further delay.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

observations.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb