Case Details: Manjulaben Mafatlal Shah vs. Tax Recovery Officer-3, Ahmedabad - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 746 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
-
Shashank A. Mehta & Saukhya Lakade, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Suresh Kumar & Ms Mamta Omle, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was the spouse of a director of Shri Ram Tubes Private Limited. The Income Tax Department issued a notice under section 226(3) directing the petitioner’s bank to remit the monies lying in her sole bank account towards recovery of the company’s outstanding tax dues. Consequently, the petitioner’s individual bank account was attached.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, contending that she had no involvement with the company. She was neither a director, shareholder, nor employee of the company and had never held any such position. It was further submitted that the attached bank account stood exclusively in her name and that the attachment was made solely on the ground that she was the wife of a director.
High Court Held
The High Court held that once it was admitted that the petitioner was neither a director nor otherwise connected with the company, the Department could not attach her sole bank account merely because she was the spouse of a director. Although the Department may proceed against the director under section 179 in appropriate cases, such provision was wholly inapplicable to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the notice issued under section 226(3) fastening the company’s liability upon the petitioner was without jurisdiction. The impugned notice was quashed, and the attachment was directed to be vacated. The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
The post Director’s Spouse Bank Account Cannot Be Attached for Company Tax Dues | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
