Delhi HC Allows Operation of Salary Account for Subsistence Allowance, Directs PCIT to Decide Appeal Within Eight Weeks [Read Order]
As per the proviso to Section 226(2) read with Section 60 of the CPC, the subsistence allowance was not subject to attachment. Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to operate the account for the subsistence allowance, while any other amounts remained attached.
The High Court of Delhi, while disposing of the petition, allowed the petitioner to operate her salary account for the subsistence allowance credited by the employer and directed the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to dispose of the appeal/revision filed by her within eight weeks.
Saumya Chaurasia,petitioner-assessee, through the counsel, submitted that following the last order, she had filed an appeal/revision before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) and requested a direction for its disposal within a specified time.
Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, counsel for the respondent, stated that the appeal/revision would be disposed of within eight weeks, which was recorded.
The petitioner’s counsel also highlighted that she was unable to operate her bank account. In response, Mr. Bhatia placed on record a communication sent to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Ganjpara, Durg, regarding the attachment of her bank account under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The communication clarified that the account, being a salary account, received subsistence allowance from the employer. As per the proviso to Section 226(2) read with Section 60 of the CPC, the subsistence allowance was not subject to attachment. Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to operate the account for the subsistence allowance, while any other amounts remained attached.
It was also clarified that the attachment of the petitioner’s other accounts, including Recurring Deposit, Fixed Deposit, and Savings Accounts, continued in force. The respondents undertook to ensure that the bank allowed the petitioner to access the subsistence allowance in her account.
Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar considered the submissions of the respondent counsel on both pleas and disposed of the petition. Since the pending application had become infructuous, it was also disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
