Ramen Deka vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ramen Deka, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an action by the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Department, through a Notice dated 19.02.2024 issued under Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had directed the HDFC Bank Ltd. (respondent no. 6) to debit-freeze the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner's counsel submitted that an appeal against the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023 was pending before the First Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue other legal remedies.
Held
The Court noted the submission made by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Dubey, that an appeal against the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023 was pending before the First Appellate Authority. Based on this submission, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to seek recourse to appropriate remedies as permissible under the law. The Court accepted this request. The Court dismissed the writ petition on withdrawal, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue other legal avenues. The specific merits of the debit freeze notice under Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of the pending appeal, were not adjudicated upon by the Court as the petition was dismissed on withdrawal. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Income Tax Department was justified in debit-freezing the petitioner's bank account while an appeal against the Assessment Order was pending before the First Appellate Authority, under Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The petitioner argued that since an appeal against the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023 was already pending before the First Appellate Authority, the action of debit-freezing the bank account was premature or inappropriate. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies, implying a challenge to the validity or timing of the debit freeze notice. The Revenue (Income Tax Department) presented a Notice dated 19.02.2024 issued under Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was the basis for the debit freeze. No specific arguments were recorded from the Revenue's side regarding the merits of the debit freeze in light of the pending appeal, beyond presenting the notice.
Sections Cited
Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 26.05.2026 Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Chopra, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the respondent nos. 2-5; and Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent no.
Mr. Chopra has handed over to Mr. Dubey a copy of the Notice dated 19.02.2024 issued under Section 226[3] Clause [1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the respondent Income Tax Department [marked & kept with the case record as Document – ‘A’] whereby the Bank Account of the petitioner maintained at the respondent no. 6 Bank has been kept debit- freezed. Mr. Dubey, having received a copy of the said Notice, has submitted that since the appeal preferred against the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023 is presently pending before the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition, with the liberty to seek recourse to appropriate remedy as permissible under the law. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Page No.# 3/3 the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal, with the liberty as sought for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.