The main legal point established is that the attachment of a pension account for tax recovery is permissible under the Income Tax Act, and the exemptions under the Pensions Act do not apply in such cases.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the attachment order dated 06.02.2017, Annexure P.9 read with letter dated 15.03.2017, Annexure P.10 whereby pension account of the petitioner has been attached and recovery of alleged tax liability has been ordered against Protective Assessment vide order dated 28.03.2016, Annexure P.1/D. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 20.06.2016 and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner/assessee was a bank employee during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. He filed his return at the relevant time with the Income Tax Office at the place of his employment. The petitioner was having family agricultural income from his ancestral agricultural land. The petitioner along with other persons entered into an agreement to sell dated 5.5.2005 with one Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of Jalandhar, who himself and as GPA of his family members, agreed for the sale of a piece of Agricultural land measuring 787 Kanal 6 Marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 2.74 crores. An advance money of Rs. 10 lacs was paid to the vendor. The land was intended to be purchased along with agricultural implements, irrigation system, Haveli etc for agricultural purposes only. The vendor resiled from the agreement as he entered into an agreement with another person for a better sale consideration. The petitioner had to file a civil suit to protect his interest. The suit was decreed and individual sale deeds were got executed as ordered by civil court in the suit for specific performance. Respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) dated 20.03.2015, Annexure P.1/C without recording any reasons. According to the petitioner, the proceedings under Section 147 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act are prima facie wrong in view of the fact that he was only an employee at the relevant time and he could not engage himself in any business of profit. The petitioner filed return under protest declaring income of Rs. 2,34,075/- against the notice issued under Section 148/142 (1) of the Act. Respondent No.2 passed the assessment order dated 28.03.2016 whereby the net taxable income was assessed and computed wrongly as Rs. 1,39,64,325/-. Respondent No.2 proceeded to pass this order as protective assessment. The petitioner asserts that he was only purchaser of the land for a consideration of Rs. 7 lacs. Besides the inter se dispute between the parties and the judgment and decree of the civil suit against the petitioner, in another civil suit, the petitioner had to refund a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to Lakhvir Singh, which had also been ignored to make a hypothetical addition of the said amount to the income of the petitioner from other sources. There was nothing on record to suggest that the purchase of land in question was not for agricultural purposes and for self cultivation. The petitioner filed an application under Section 220(3)/(6) of the Act before Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur, praying for stay of the demand. Vide order dated 20.06.2016, Annexure P.3, the application was disposed of in terms of order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur. Vide order dated 20.6.2016, an onerous demand was raised to pay 15% of the demand relatable to the addition substantively made in the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for stay before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. Vide order dated 15.12.2016, the Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.06.2016. An assessment order in the case of AOP named as AOP comprising Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Tehal Singh through Shri Gurcharan Singh son of