SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Kar) 649

V.K.SINGHAL
VYSYA BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JOINT Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N. Khetty, for the Appellant

ORDER

V.K. Singhal, J.--Validity of notices issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been assailed in all these petitions and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The controversy is regarding attachment of fixed deposit receipts which have been attached on account of non-payment of Income Tax dues by the assessees. Garnishee proceedings have accordingly been taken.

3. The only point to be determined is as to whether the petitioner bank is under obligation to make the payment of fixed deposit of the assessees in default before its maturity.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the contract entered into, fixed deposit is payable at a later date and, therefore, it has not become due. Relevant provisions of section 226(3)(i) & (iv) are as under :

"226(3)(i) The assessing officer or TRO may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the assessing officer or TRO either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or w



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top