9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of Shri Vinod Sen was also confirmed by the petitioner vide his statement dated 7th March, 2012. The petitioner filed return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 30th July, 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 27,52,100/- including the income declared of Rs. 21,73,000/- on account of unexplained cash. The petitioner filed an application dated 14th June, 2012 to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to adjust the tax liability from the seized amount. On 21st October, 2013, the assessment order came to be passed under section 143(3) wherein the petitioner was assessed at a total income of Rs. 31,79,100/- against the returned income of Rs. 27,52,100/-. A penalty order dated 1st November, 2013 was also passed levying penalty on additions made amounting to Rs. 1,31,940/-. On request made by the petitioner for rectification, an order dated 4th November, 2013 came to be passed under section 154 of the Act revising the total demand in quantum proceedings to Rs. 8,84,040/-. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the Assessing Officer which was received by him on 2nd December, 2013 for release of the seized amount along with interest after adjusting the demand. By a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the stand of the respondent is that the cash of Rs. 26,00,000/- was seized by the Ernakulam police authorities on 16th February, 2012 from Shri Vinod Sen. This cash was handed over to the income-tax authorities on the strength of a requisition under section 132A of the Act issued by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kochi from Shri Vinod Sen. On the basis of the statement of Shri Vinod Sen during the proceedings under section 132A of the Act attributing the ownership of the goods to the petitioner and the admission of the petitioner to that effect, proceedings under section 153C of the Act had been carried out in the case of the petitioner and a demand of Rs. 8,81,010/- has been raised in the case of the petitioner, which has remained unpaid as on date. It was submitted that at this stage, as per the provisions of section 132B(1)(i), only the existing liability of the "searched person" (from whom cash has been seized) as defined in the section can be recovered from the seized assets. The petitioner admittedly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to request for release of the seized assets and the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 5. From the facts noted hereinabove including the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, it is evident that it is an admitted position that the person from whom the cash of Rs. 26,00,000/- was seized namely, Shri Vinod Sen has, in his statement recorded during the proceedings under section 132A of the Act, stated that the cash belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner had also during the course of proceedings under section 153C of the Act admitted that the cash belonged to him and had also disclosed such amount in the return filed by him. Therefore, the petitioner's ownership of the seized assets is not in dispute, inasmuch as, even the person from whom the cash had been seized has admitted that the same belonged to the petitioner. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner in the application for release of the seized assets (cash) has requested the respondent to adjust the pending dues against the cash and to refund the balance amount with interest thereon. The request made by the petitioner is not acceded to by the respondent by placing reliance u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e belonged to the petitioner and the petitioner had also in proceedings under section 153C admitted the same. The Department has also treated the cash as belonging to the petitioner, however, in the present petition, a contrary stand has been taken to the effect that the cash having been requisitioned from Shri Vinod Sen can be released only in his favour and that the cash so seized can be adjusted only against the dues of Shri Vinod Sen. 7. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Verma v. Union of India (supra), wherein the court was dealing with a case involving a similar set of facts where there was no dispute that the seized articles belonged to the petitioner and in fact, the Income Tax Officer had also acknowledged such fact in the order passed by him and the person from whom the articles were seized took the same stand. The court held that in these circumstances, the provisions of sub-section 132B(3) cannot be applied as the same was intended to apply in case where there was a dispute of title or absence of title and not where title was undisputed. This court is in agreement with the view adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
