220 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHCWP-26246-2019 DECIDED ON:FEBRUARY 18, 2020 RITU RAJ GARG PETITIONER VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent.AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): By this petition, petitioner has challenged provisional attachment of property. 2. facts are that originally property in question was in joint names of petitioner and her husband. On 17.01.2018 husband of petitioner transferred his 50% share of property in name of petitioner. On 06.06.2018, search was conducted and at that time property was provisionally attached as per original ownership of 50:50 (in name of petitioner and in name of her husband). 3. first argument of learned Senior counsel for petitioner is that once it was admitted that property was transferred much before search it could not have been attached in name of previous owner. 1 of 2 Downloaded on - 31-03-2020 11:44:46 CWP-26246-2019 -2- 4. Learned counsel for revenue sought to argue that transfer was fraudulent but has accepted that no proceedings have been initiated under Section 281 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'). In circumstances stand cannot be accepted and it has to be held that at time of search property was in ownership of petitioner and, therefore, its provisional attachment is deemed to be in hands of petitioner. 5 Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that once issue of ownership of property and in whose hands it could be provisionally attached has been clarified, fact is that subsequently assessment has been finalized and consequently provisional attachment cannot continue. Learned counsel for revenue is not in position to deny this factual aspect also. 6. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and it is directed that first property be treated to have been provisionally attached in name of petitioner and secondly provisional attachment has come to end after passing of assessment order, while giving liberty to respondent to proceed under Section 281 of Act, if so advised. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2020 sham 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No 2 of 2 Downloaded on - 31-03-2020 11:44:47 Ritu Raj Garg v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax