TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the revision petition of the respondent Romesh Chander and dismissed the petition of the appellant. The facts leading to the order are these: On 6 August, 1971 the respondent Romesh Chander was travelling in a car. His car was intercepted by the police. A sum of ₹ 1,61,411/- was found in a bag in his hands. The respondent Romesh Chander was taken to the police station. A criminal case was registered against him under sections 411, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Foreign Exchange Act, 1947. The Commissioner of Income Tax issued a warrant of authorisation empowering certain officers under section 132 of the Income Tax Act to conduct a search and seizure. Pursuant to that authorisatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand against the respondent Romesh Chander, and the papers of the Respondent Romesh Chander be also retained by the Revenue Authorities for completion of assessment proceedings against the respondent Romesh Chander. In the aforesaid application of the Revenue Authorities before the Judicial Magistrate, Jullundur it was alleged that a regular assessment order had been passed on 26 June 1972 against the respondent Romesh Chander and the demand of the Revenue Authorities against the respondent Romesh Chander was ₹ 7,90,293/-. The Revenue further alleged that the respondent Romesh Chander was given 35 days notice to pay the amount and because he did not pay the amount demanded, the sum of ₹ 1,61,411/- was adjusted on 5 Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner on 3 August, 1972. The application of the respondent Romesh Chander under section 146 of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the Income Tax Officer on 2 August 1973. The respondent Romesh Chander filed an appeal against the rejection of the petition on 27 August 1973. On 17 September 1973 the appeals filed by the respondent Romesh Chander against the orders of the Revenue in regard to assessment of Income tax of the respondent were heard. The Income Tax Officer on 18 September 1973 asked for adjournment to explain the departmental case. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted adjournment and informed the respondent Romesh Chander by letter dated 22 September 1973 that steps had been taken by the department to stop all recovery p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue also went up in revision. By order dated 4 January 1975 the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur allowed the revision petition of the respondent Romesh Chander and dismissed the petition of the appellant Revenue. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur directed the Income Tax Authorities to return the amount of ₹ 1,61,411/- and the books to the respondent Romesh Chander. The appellant Revenue filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order dated 4 January 1975 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur. The High Court rightly rejected the writ petition at sight. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur held that the criminal case against the respondent Romesh Chander was filed by an order of the Judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment and there is no income-tax demand. There is no criminal case against the respondent Romesh Chander. The order of the High Court dated 25 May 1972 directed the return of the sum of ₹ 1,61,411/- and the documents to the respondent Romesh Chander. The order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the High Court on 22 November 1972. No appeal was preferred against the order of the High Court. The order of the High Court was that the amount of ₹ 1,61,411/- and the books and other documents were to be returned to the Station House Officer. After the criminal case had been filed the authorities have no right to keep the money, under any provision of law. There is no question of adjustment of the sum of ₹ 1,61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
