TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id from the day next following the day on which the assessment was completed till the amount was actually released to the petitioner, in respect of the period beyond the date on which the assessment was completed. Thus the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest @ 12% in respect of the amount of Rs.6,33,800/- for the period from 27.12.2006 to 24.05.2011 and a writ of mandamus directing the payment of the interest is accordingly issued. - W.P.(C) 7551/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2013 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. Ms Archana Gaur, Advocate. JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is admitted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrote to the assessing officer/ CIT, New Delhi to adjust the cash seized against the existing tax liability as envisaged by the provisions of 132B of the Act. However, the request of the petitioner was not accepted. 5. The petitioner had filed an appeal to the CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06. By order dated 10.04.2008, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of the cash found. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 21.03.2005 the Tribunal held that the cash found from the possession of the assessee actually belonged to M/s. S. K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. The assessing officer gave effect to the order of the Tribunal and revised the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the petitioner is an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.08.2012 in W.P. (C) No.876/2012 in G.L. Jain v. CIT Ors. , which is stated to be the case of the assessee‟s brother. In that case, this Court, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT Ors. : (2002) 280 ITR 643 and the judgment of a Division Bench in Ajay Gupta v. CIT : (2008) 297 ITR 125, directed that it would be reasonable and equitable to order interest to be paid at the rate of 12% on the cash seized, in respect of the period beyond the date on which the assessment was completed. 9. Section 132B provides for the application of seized or requisitioned assets. Under sub-section (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as actually released to the petitioner, no interest has been provided under section 132B(4) of the Act. 10. In an identical situation, this Court in its order dated 28.08.2012 in W.P. (C) No.876/2012 (supra) has directed the revenue to grant interest @ 12%. In that case certain amounts had been returned to the petitioner (in that case) and accordingly adjustments were directed to be made in respect of those payments while quantifying the amount on which the interest was directed to be paid. However, so far as the period for which the interest was payable to the petitioner in that case is concerned, there is no dispute that the direction of this Court was that it should be paid from the day next following the day on which the assessment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
