TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had sent its partner Shri Bhushan Kumar to Delhi to collect the payment of Rs.80,000/- from M/s Jyoti Parshad Sham Lal against the aforesaid purchase - Amounts were seized by S.H.O., Railway Police Station, Delhi in the night of 22.8.1988. Thereafter, the Income Tax authorities took the amounts in their possession – Held that:- Before passing the impugned orders, opportunity of hearing was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reference, facts are taken from CWP-6283 of 1989 wherein an amount of Rs.80,000/- was allowed to be retained by the income tax authorities under Section 132(7) of the Act. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner, who is in the business of commission agent, at Kalanwali, District Sirsa had purchased 380 bags of wheat on account of M/s Jyoti Parshad Sham Lal, Delhi between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of amount, the Income Tax authorities made a survey at the premises of Pawan Kumar Gian Chand and Jyoti Parshad Sham Lal. The entries in their books of accounts and the statement of the proprietor of the firm corroborated the statement of Shri Bhushan Kumar that he has got the payment of the wheat from M/s Pawan Kumar Gian Chand and Jyoti Parshad Sham Lal. 3. Thereafter, order under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin fifteen days of the seizure and in case where the assets are handed over to him by the authorised officer under sub Section (9A) of Section 132, within fifteen days from the date on which such assets are handed over to him, issue to the person in respect of whom inquiry under Sub Section (5) of the Section 132 is to be made requiring him on the date to be specified therein (not being earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
