TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any interest on the excess amount seized in the search conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, as the search was made well beyond the cut off date referred to under section 132(5) of the Act - The respondent has rightly rejected the plea for interest made by the petitioner -While passing the impugned order, the respondent has rightly applied the relevant provisions of law and dismissed the plea for interest on the amount seized in the search conducted and refunded after assessment was made - Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. - W.P.No.4234 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2010 - MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL, J. For petitioner : Mr.S.Jayakumar For respondent : Mr.Ravikumar ORDER The petitioner was asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well beyond the deadline viz., 1st July 1995 fixed under the aforesaid provision of law. Section 244A of the Income Tax Act would apply in a case of return of the excess prepaid Tax amount. Therefore, the respondent would contend that the impugned order was passed rightly by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent never considered the provision under section 158BH of the Income Tax Act which states "save as otherwise provided in this Chapter all other provisions of this Act, shall apply to assessment made under this Chapter". The respondent should have also adverted to the provision under section 158BC(d) which says that the provisions under section 132B shall be applied to deal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect payment of interest under the general law, he submits. 5. The search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the residential and business premises of the petitioner on 4.12.1998 and a cash amount of Rs.17,50,000/= was seized at the time of search. The respondent passed an order of assessment under section 158BC read with section 143(3) on 22.12.2000. The total tax payable by the petitioner was assessed at Rs.12,87,660/= for the block period 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The respondent issued a refund cheque on 4.4.2001 for a sum of Rs.4,62,340/= after deducting a sum of Rs.12,87,660/= from the amounts seized and kept in the Commissioner's Personal Deposit Account. 6. The cumulative reading of section 132(5) read with se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid provision of law found in Chapter XIV-B, the Assessing Authority is bound to deal with the assets seized during search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, applying the provision under section 132B, subject to such modifications as may be necessary. But, the payment of interest as contemplated under section 132B(4)(a) of the Act would arise only when the money was seized in the search initiated before 1st July 1995 as per section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act. 9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, when the legislature intended not to make any provision for payment of interest by the Central Government for the money seized during the course of search conducted under section 132 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n excess by the Department was not paid with interest in accordance with section 132B(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner therein sought for a direction to the Income Tax Department to pay interest on the amount retained by them. The aforesaid decision will not apply to the case on hand as the search was made on 4.12.1998 well beyond the cut off date, 1.7.1995. 12. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in SANDVIK ASIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Tax AND OTHERS ((2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC)) was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. That was a case where the prepaid tax in excess of the tax liability was retained by the Income Tax Department for about 17 long years. Though the petitioner therein was en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
