TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - Judge(s) : R. GURURAJAN. JUDGMENT R. GURURAJAN J.- These petitions are filed by Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and two others seeking for various reliefs. The facts in brief are as under: The respondent authorities conducted search and seizure under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) of the assessees, namely, Vithal Janardhan Jadhav, Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh and Vinayak Vilas Ghodke on June 16, 1999, at Hubli. Search and seizure action was commenced and concluded on June 16, 1999. As a result of search and seizure actions, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was seized from the said three persons. Notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued and served on the assessees. Returns of income in Form No. 2B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hubli found these petitioners with bags and suitcases containing Rs. 20,07,350. They were taken to the police station. Information was passed on to the Deputy Director of Income-tax, Hubli. These three persons revealed that the said cash belonged to a group of Raju Patadia of Hubli. An inspector was deputed by the Income-tax Department. Enquiries were held and the cash was seized. In the enquiry, the petitioners stated that the cash does not belong to them and they have nothing to do with the said cash. The Department found Rs. 11,55,850 from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke, Rs. 4,27,500 from Vithal Janardhan Jadhav and Rs. 4,24,200 from Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh. Cash seized from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke was Rs. 11,53,000, from Vithal Janardhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties under section 132(1) of the Act. They also sought for other reliefs including quashing of notice issued by the respondent authorities under section 158BC of the Act. From the order of this court it is seen that learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are only interested in getting back the amount seized by the income tax authorities after the authorities completing the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. No arguments were advanced with regard to these questions in the earlier proceedings. In the earlier petition this court in para. 6 has ruled as under: "6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petitioners' case before this court, these writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court notices that the petitioner who withdraws the petition cannot file a fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action. In the case on hand, what is being done is only to revive the given-up contentions in the earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the strenuous arguments on the part of the petitioner's counsel, I am unable to appreciate them in the light of the earlier judgment of this court. No acceptable arguments are placed before me. In the circumstances, I have no option but to reject the petitions and confirm the orders passed by the revisional authority based on facts. Ordered acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
