My s.281B attachment has been continued beyond six months. The Commissioner never passed a separate reasoned order - only an endorsement on the Assessing Officer's proposal. Is the extension bad?
Not on this decision. The Court held that where the Assessing Officer's proposal narrates the facts necessitating extension and the Principal Commissioner endorses on it that in view of those facts the attachment may be continued for another six months to safeguard the interest of revenue, that endorsement is sufficient compliance with the first proviso to s.281B(2). The writ petitions were dismissed.
Decided by the High Court (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J) on 2015-12-07, reported as WP(C) Nos. 31563, 31573 and 31579 of 2015 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). It bears on section 281B, section 281B(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
The provisional-attachment challenge that succeeds most often is the one aimed at reasons. This decision marks the floor: the Commissioner's satisfaction need not be a free-standing reasoned order, and reasons in the Assessing Officer's proposal can be adopted by endorsement. If you are attacking an extension, you must therefore attack the proposal too - if the proposal itself narrates no facts, there is nothing for the endorsement to adopt. Note the direction of travel: the reasoning is borrowed from the Delhi High Court in Nimitya Properties, and it pre-dates the line of decisions applying Radha Krishan Industries, which insist on the officer's own tangible material for the original attachment. The two are not necessarily in conflict - this case is about the extension, not the original order - but a Court applying Radha Krishan today may look harder at the endorsement.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Properties belonging to the petitioners were provisionally attached under s.281B pending completion of assessments for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The initial six-month period of attachment expired without the proceedings being completed, and the petitioners were informed that the attachment had been continued for a further six months under s.281B(2) and its proviso. They challenged the continuation on the ground that it was not preceded by an order of the Commissioner furnishing reasons in writing. The Revenue produced the Assessing Officer's proposal placed before the Principal Commissioner, which narrated the facts necessitating extension and sought approval; below it the Principal Commissioner had endorsed that 'in view of the above facts provisional attachment may be continued for another six months in order to safeguard the interest of revenue'.
The writ petitions failed and were dismissed. The endorsement by the Principal Commissioner on the report submitted by the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to s.281B(2), and there was no reason to interfere with the extension of the provisional attachment.
The Court noted the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala [(1979) 118 ITR 852], the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. [(2003) 261 ITR 63] and the Delhi High Court in Nimitya Properties Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 668 (Del)] on the nature of the order required from the Commissioner under the proviso to s.281B(2). Although the facts of those cases differed, in Nimitya Properties the Assessing Officer's request to the Commissioner was on more or less the same lines as here and the Commissioner's approval was similarly expressed as an endorsement recording satisfaction that it was a fit case to extend the attachment; the Delhi High Court held that sufficient. Agreeing with that reasoning, the Court took the same view of the endorsement in the present case.
Taking cue from the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, with the reasoning in which I agree, I am of the view that in the instant case also, the endorsement by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on the report submitted by the Assessing officer can be seen as sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to Section 281B (2) of the IT Act.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot on this decision. The Court held that where the Assessing Officer's proposal narrates the facts necessitating extension and the Principal Commissioner endorses on it that in view of those facts the attachment may be continued for another six months to safeguard the interest of revenue, that endorsement is sufficient compliance with the first proviso to s.281B(2). The writ petitions were dismissed. This was decided by the High Court (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J) and bears on section 281B, section 281B(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as WP(C) Nos. 31563, 31573 and 31579 of 2015 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). The provisional-attachment challenge that succeeds most often is the one aimed at reasons. This decision marks the floor: the Commissioner's satisfaction need not be a free-standing reasoned order, and reasons in the Assessing Officer's proposal can be adopted by endorsement. If you are attacking an extension, you must therefore attack the proposal too - if the proposal itself narrates no facts, there is nothing for the endorsement to adopt. Note the direction of travel: the reasoning is borrowed from the Delhi High Court in Nimitya Properties, and it pre-dates the line of decisions applying Radha Krishan Industries, which insist on the officer's own tangible material for the original attachment. The two are not necessarily in conflict - this case is about the extension, not the original order - but a Court applying Radha Krishan today may look harder at the endorsement. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for the Assessing Officer's proposal, not just the extension communication. The reasons the Court will look at are in the proposal.
Properties belonging to the petitioners were provisionally attached under s.281B pending completion of assessments for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The initial six-month period of attachment expired without the proceedings being completed, and the petitioners were informed that the attachment had been continued for a further six months under s.281B(2) and its proviso. They challenged the continuation on the ground that it was not preceded by an order of the Commissioner furnishing reasons in writing. The Revenue produced the Assessing Officer's proposal placed before the Principal Commissioner, which narrated the facts necessitating extension and sought approval; below it the Principal Commissioner had endorsed that 'in view of the above facts provisional attachment may be continued for another six months in order to safeguard the interest of revenue'. The matter was decided on 2015-12-07 by the High Court (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petitions failed and were dismissed. The endorsement by the Principal Commissioner on the report submitted by the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to s.281B(2), and there was no reason to interfere with the extension of the provisional attachment.
The Court noted the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala [(1979) 118 ITR 852], the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. [(2003) 261 ITR 63] and the Delhi High Court in Nimitya Properties Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 668 (Del)] on the nature of the order required from the Commissioner under the proviso to s.281B(2). Although the facts of those cases differed, in Nimitya Properties the Assessing Officer's request to the Commissioner was on more or less the same lines as here and the Commissioner's approval was similarly expressed as an endorsement recording satisfaction that it was a fit case to extend the attachment; the Delhi High Court held that sufficient. Agreeing with that reasoning, the Court took the same view of the endorsement in the present case. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Taking cue from the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, with the reasoning in which I agree, I am of the view that in the instant case also, the endorsement by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on the report submitted by the Assessing officer can be seen as sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to Section 281B (2) of the IT Act." The decision followed or applied Nimitya Properties Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 668 (Del) - followed; Ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala v. Union of India (1979) 118 ITR 852 (Guj) - noted; Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 63 (Mad) - noted.
It was decided by the High Court on 2015-12-07 and is reported as WP(C) Nos. 31563, 31573 and 31579 of 2015 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 281B, section 281B(2), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petitions failed and were dismissed. The endorsement by the Principal Commissioner on the report submitted by the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to s.281B(2), and there was no reason to interfere with the extension of the provisional attachment. It arises in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 281B, section 281B(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the proposal narrates facts and the Commissioner has endorsed on it, do not run the case on absence of a separate reasoned order alone; attack the sufficiency of the facts narrated. Diarise the six-month expiry from the date of the s.281B(1) order. An attachment ceases automatically on expiry unless validly extended. Check the outer limit as the section now stands - two years, or sixty days after the date of the order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later - and check who granted the extension; the section now names the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, overruling or doubting this judgment has been found, at any level, and no Supreme Court challenge is traceable. Provisional attachment under s.281B is not a heavily litigated area at High Court level, and this judgment has simply not been taken up since. Treat it as unexamined Kerala authority. One caution on the date. The judgment is sometimes listed under 1 April 2015, which does not match the 7 December 2015 date recorded here for W.P.(C) Nos. 31563, 31573 and 31579 of 2015. A reader citing it should check the date on the certified copy. Two things limit how far the decision carries, and they matter more than the absence of later treatment. The first is that it is about the extension under the first proviso to s.281B(2), not about the original attachment under s.281B(1). The line of decisions applying Radha Krishan Industries, which insists on the officer's own tangible material for the original order, came later and is not in conflict with this judgment on its own terms - but a Court applying that line today may look harder at an endorsement. The second is that the section has changed since 2015. As it now stands the outer limit is two years, or sixty days after the date of the order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later, and the authority who may extend is named as the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director. The 2015 order names the Principal Commissioner. Treat it as authority on the sufficiency of the endorsement, not on who may grant an extension today. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE JUDGMENT. It has only three numbered paragraphs. The reasoning and the disposal appear in an unnumbered passage following paragraph 3, so a citation to any later paragraph number in this case would be wrong. Cite it by the sentence. ON THE VERSION OF THE SECTION. The decision is of 2015 and applies s.281B as it then stood. Consolidated texts of s.281B in circulation are not reliable for this section: some of them are versions current as at 2000, showing an outer limit of two years with no reference to sixty days after the assessment order, and naming the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director General or Director as the approving authority. The current wording used on this page is taken from the Bombay High Court's verbatim reproduction of the section in Microfiber Corp Pvt. Ltd v. State Bank of India (WP 9449 of 2023, decided 23 February 2024), which names the fuller present list of authorities. Read the section as it stands for your own matter before acting on any of it. WHAT THE JUDGMENT ACTUALLY HOLDS, and it is narrower than it is often made to sound. The Revenue produced the Assessing Officer's proposal placed before the Principal Commissioner, which narrated the facts necessitating extension and sought approval; below it the Principal Commissioner had endorsed that 'in view of the above facts provisional attachment may be continued for another six months in order to safeguard the interest of revenue'. The Court held that endorsement sufficient compliance with the first proviso to s.281B(2). The reasons are therefore the proposal's, adopted by reference. If the proposal narrates no facts, there is nothing for the endorsement to adopt, and the attack has to be on the proposal. ON THE FACTS, which are worth keeping in view. Properties of three petitioners were provisionally attached pending completion of assessments for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The initial six-month period expired without the proceedings being completed, and the petitioners were told the attachment had been continued for a further six months. Their only ground was that no separate reasoned order of the Commissioner preceded the continuation. The writ petitions were dismissed on that ground alone. ON THE AUTHORITIES USED. The Court considered the Gujarat High Court in Ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala [(1979) 118 ITR 852], the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. [(2003) 261 ITR 63] and the Delhi High Court in Nimitya Properties Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 668 (Del)]. It followed Nimitya Properties, where the request and the approval were on more or less the same lines as here. The reasoning is therefore borrowed rather than worked out afresh, and Nimitya Properties is the decision to read alongside it. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petitions failed and were dismissed. The endorsement by the Principal Commissioner on the report submitted by the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the first proviso to s.281B(2), and there was no reason to interfere with the extension of the provisional attachment.
TaxSphere, “N.P. Subair v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/np-subair-281b-extension-endorsement-on-the-officers-proposal-is-enough/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Can a bank account be provisionally attached under s.281B at all, and how much can be attached?
Your bank accounts are provisionally attached and the business cannot operate. Is there a way out short of paying?
The department has provisionally attached my bank accounts under s.281B while the assessment is still going on. What are the limits on that power?
The officer has provisionally attached my property in a Black Money Act proceeding. Where does that power come from, and is s.3(2) under challenge?
