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

2013 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 3402

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ, VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AAA PORTFOLIOS PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1272/2013



Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Mr Simran Mehta, Mr R.M. Mehta, Ms Yogita Sunaria, Ms Mahima Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Mr Puneet Gupta, Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur, Mr Y.K. Kapur

An Assessing Officer cannot appropriate funds from a third party unless there's clear admission of debt; disputes over indebtedness render such actions jurisdictionally void.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 226(3) - Writ petition challenging order appropriating escrow funds - Assessing Officer's action to collect tax from third party holding funds for the assessee in violation of statutory provisions found to be without jurisdiction - The escrow account did not belong to the assessee company, thus the order and notice were set aside. (Paras 1, 21, 28)

(B) Garnishee proceedings - Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate third-party disputes regarding funds held in escrow unless the third party admits liability - If third-party disputes debtor status, further action by the Assessing Officer is prohibited. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition against an order appropriating a substantial sum held in escrow, related to the sale of shares, due to an income tax liability of the assessee company, which was disputed. The funds were to cover potential tax liabilities stemming from prior corporate restructuring, and the escrow agent affirmed that none of the funds belonged to the assessee company.

Findings of Court:
The Assessing Officer's assessment was deemed erroneous since the escrow funds did not belong to the assessee company, leading to the conclusion that orders made under Section 226(3) were outside the Officer’s jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the funds held in escrow can be classified as owed to the assessee company and whether the Assessing Officer could compel payment under Section 226(3).

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that funds in escrow maintained by a bank as per a share purchase agreement are not owed to the assessee company unless it is explicitly stated, reinforcing that the Assessing Officers do not possess authority to make determinations in disputed cases.

Result: The impugned order and notice were set aside, requiring a refund of the appropriated amount to the escrow agent.

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by Respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Assessing Officer”) and the consequential notice dated 04.02.2013 issued under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioners are aggrieved on account of the action of the Assessing Officer in appropriating a sum of ‘95,85,30,934/- which was lying in escrow with respondent No.2 bank.

2. The petitioners held shares in respondent No.3 company, namely, Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee company”). Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 held 1,00,000 shares each of the assessee company and the petitioner No.3 held 16,00,000 shares of the assessee company. The petitioners along with three other entities, namely Charak Ayurvedic Institute, Escorts Employees Welfare Trust and Diamond Leasing and Finance Limited who held 100 shares of the assessee company each entered into a share purchase agreement dated 25.9.2005 for sale of their shares in the assessee company to M/s Fortis Health Care Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “purchaser”). In all 18,00,300 shares of the assessee company which aggregated 90.01% of the issued and paid up share capital of the assessee company were agreed to be sold by the petitioners and three other entities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “sellers”). The consideration for the sale of 18,00,300 shares of the assessee company was agreed at ‘585,00,97,485/- @ ‘3249.51 per share. As agreed under the share purchase agreement, the purchaser was required to deposit the entire consideration with the escrow agent and the sellers agreed to deposit certain documents including share transfer deeds and instructions with the escrow agents in order to consummate the transaction for sale and purchase of an aggregate of 18,00,300 equity shares of the assessee company. The shares held by petitioner No.3 were pledged with certain lenders and the escrow agent was required to release part of the consideration to the lenders in order that the petitioner No.3 could redeem the pledge and transfer unencumbered shares to the purchaser.

3. It was agreed between the sellers and the purchaser that the escrow agent would release ‘3,24,951/- each to Charak Ayurvedic Institute, Escorts Employees Welfare Trust and Diamond Leasing and Finance Limited as consideration for the sale of the 100 shares each held by them in the assessee company and out of the balance consideration deposited by the purchaser an aggregate sum of ‘149,99,02,514/- would be withheld with the escrow agent and the remaining balance amount would be released to the petitioner No.3. The amount to be withheld by the escrow agent included a sum of ‘64,99,02,514/- which was the entire consideration payable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for sale of their shares in the assessee company to the purchaser.

4. The purpose for withholding the sum of ‘64,99,02,514/- from the sale consideration payable by the purchaser was on account of the income tax liability of the assessee company that was being contested. It is relevant to state that M/s Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, which was a charitable society was merged with another society and subsequently, the same was converted into a company incorporated under the Companies Act, namely, the assessee company. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the assessee company under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act and passed an assessment order for the assessment year 2001-2002 raising a demand of ‘124.36 crores. The said demand is disputed by the assesssee company. As there were disputes pending with the Income Tax Department regarding the tax liability of the assessee company, it was agreed between the purchaser and the petitioners that a certain sum would be held back from the sale consideration by the escrow agent and would not be released to the petitioner

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 Back to top