Niyasha Barman v. Income-tax Officer, Ward–3(4)/Balurghat & Ors
[Citation -2020-LL-0421]

Citation 2020-LL-0421
Appellant Name Niyasha Barman
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward–3(4)/Balurghat & Ors.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/04/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags undue hardship • fixed deposit • stay petition • recovery proceeding • attachment of bank account
Bot Summary: The writ petitioner in WP No.5347(W) of 2020 is a retired police personnel while the writ petitioner in WP No.5354(W) of 2020 is a retired person from the education department. The writ petitioner in WP No.5347 of 2020 is receiving pension while the other petitioner is yet to receive his pension. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, since the petitioners are retired, they are facing undue hardship by reason of the notice of recovery issued by the revenue authorities. In the case of the writ petition being WP No.5347(W) of 2020, the revenue authorities have received a sum in excess of Rs.2 lakhs already from the bank account of the petitioner while the amount of demand is Rs.10 lakhs. In my view, interest of justice would be subserved by directing the banks of the petitioners to allow the petitioners to operate the bank accounts subject to the bankers of the petitioner in WP No.5354(W) of 2020 setting apart a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The bankers of the petitioner of such petition thereafter will permit the petitioner to operate his bank accounts in accordance with law. So far as the writ petitioner in WP No.5347(W) of 2020 is concerned, since, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has already been paid by the banker of such petitioner to the revenue authorities, it would be appropriate to permit such petitioner to operate his bank account.


1 7 21.04. W.P. No.5347 (W) of 2020 & 2020 12 Niyasha Barman. ns Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4)/Balurghat & Ors. With W.P. No.5354 (W) of 2020 Narayan Chandra Sarkar. Versus Union of India & Ors. Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray for petitioners. Two writ petitions are taken up for analogous hearing as they involve similar issues. Both writ petitioners are retired personnel. writ petitioner in WP No.5347(W) of 2020 is retired police personnel while writ petitioner in WP No.5354(W) of 2020 is retired person from education department. writ petitioner in WP No.5347 (W) of 2020 is receiving pension while other petitioner is yet to receive his pension. As against both writ petitioners, order of assessment was passed by Income Tax Authorities. 2 Being aggrieved by such order of assessment, both writ petitioners filed individual appeals. There are stay petitions at behest of writ petitioners also. appeal and stay petitions are yet to be decided by appellate authority. Learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that, since petitioners are retired, they are facing undue hardship by reason of notice of recovery issued by revenue authorities. He submits that, usually, appeals against order of assessment are admitted on basis of 20% of amount of revenue demanded. In case of writ petition being WP No.5347(W) of 2020, revenue authorities have received sum in excess of Rs.2 lakhs already from bank account of petitioner while amount of demand is Rs.10 lakhs. In respect of WP No.5354(W) of 2020, revenue authorities are yet to receive any amount from two bank accounts of petitioners. amount of demand of revenue authorities therein is sum in excess of Rs.12 lakhs. There subsists order dated March 20, 2020 passed by Hon ble Supreme Court directing revenue authorities not to initiate any recovery 3 proceedings during subsistence of COVID-19 pandemic. In my view, interest of justice would be subserved by directing banks of petitioners to allow petitioners to operate bank accounts subject to bankers of petitioner in WP No.5354(W) of 2020 setting apart sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Such sum of Rs.5 lakhs, Court is informed, is lying in one of bank accounts of such petitioner. Such banker will keep sum of Rs.5 lakhs in separate interest bearing fixed deposit account with it. Such deposit will abide by result of appeal of such petitioner. bankers of petitioner of such petition thereafter will permit petitioner to operate his bank accounts in accordance with law. There will be stay of order of attachment of bank accounts subject to compliance of aforementioned conditions. So far as writ petitioner in WP No.5347(W) of 2020 is concerned, since, sum of Rs.2 lakhs has already been paid by banker of such petitioner to revenue authorities, it would be appropriate to permit such petitioner to operate his bank account. order of attachment issued by revenue authorities against such bank account of petitioner in WP No.5347(W) of 4 2020 is stayed. It is clarified that this measures are put in place in view of prevailing COVID-19 pandemic in country. None of observations made herein will prejudice any of parties in appeal. appellate authority is at liberty to decide appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. List both writ petitions before appropriate Bench upon resumption of regular business of Courts. parties are requested to act on server copy of this order. ( Debangsu Basak, J. ) Niyasha Barman v. Income-tax Officer, Ward3(4)/Balurghat & Or
Report Error