Contravention of Prohibition Order by Assessee with Assistance of Bank Officials: Patna HC upholds FIR against HDFC Bank [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court has refused to quash an FIR against HDFC Bank for allegedly  assisting an assessee-in-default violating prohibition order passed under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The income tax department has completed assessments against assesses, Smt. Sunil Khemka, Smt. Sunita Khemka and Smt. Shivani Khemka. Subsequently, the department served a prohibition order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the HDFC Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna to put a stop operation on the Bank accounts, fixed deposits and Bank lockers of the assessee. It was stated that it was found that the assessee Smt. Sunita Khemka holds a Bank locker in the HDFC Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna and hence a prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act was imposed in the Bank locker no. 462 held in her name. However, it was found that the restraint order imposed has been breached and violated and that Smt. Sunita Khemka operated the Bank locker no. 462 on 9.11.2021 at 11.53 a.m.

Consequently, an FIR was filed against the Bank under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Bank approached the High Court seeking a direction to quash the FIR.

Justice Partha Sarthy rejected the argument of the Petitioner Bank that the said letter was written by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (respondent no. 5) to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and held that there is no confusion or vagueness in the contents of the said letter which clearly states that restrain order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act were put on the bank accounts of the persons stated therein which included Sunita Khemka.

“The letter proceeds to state that the restrain order put on the following bank accounts only may be revoked by the Branch Manager and they may be allowed to operate those accounts. Thereafter, the letter mention the names of the four different account holders with one account number against each of them. It included at sl. no. 3 Account no. 01861530001097 of Sunita Khemka. From reading of the contents of the letter, the Court finds that there could not have been any confusion in the mind of any of the bank officials to whom it was addressed with respect to the contents thereof,” the Court said.

Dismissing the application, the High Court held that “from the reading of the FIR in the instant case, the contents of which has to be accepted as true at this stage and the Court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the contents thereof.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.