TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This writ petition is not maintainable as it is barred by principle of res judicata neither it has any merit and substance. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition. - Writ Tax No. 80 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Udit Chandra,Praveen Kumar For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Manu Gildyal ORDER 1. The petitioners are group of companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. On 28.04.2015 a survey under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was conducted at premises Nos.7/125, C-2, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur which is the registered office of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Income Tax authorities during the course of survey seized cash amounting to ₹ 64,56,970/- and impounded the books of account. Besides cash, incriminating evidence were found at the premises of the petitioners. These documents indicated that the petitioners were taking cash from various parties and returning the money via cheques to the same parties in the guise of unsecured loan and long term capital gain (LTGC). 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties vide final judgment and order dated 07.07.2015 held that the authorities had information based on incriminating material which led a valid survey being conducted under Section 133-A of the Act. It was further held that on the basis of incriminating evidence that was discovered during the course of survey, a satisfactory note was placed before the competent authority who after considering the material and applying its mind, recorded the satisfaction for carrying out the search operation under Section 132 of the Act. This Court, therefore, in view of aforesaid findings, dismissed the said writ petition vide final judgment and order dated 07.07.2015. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- We are consequently, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities had information based upon material which led to a valid survey being conducted under Section 133A of the Act. Based on further incriminating evidence that came forward during the course of survey, a satisfactory note was placed before the competent authority, who after considering the material recorded his satisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of payment of interest on the aforesaid amount from the date it was withdrawn till its payment shall be considered thereafter. List the petition after two weeks. 8. From the perusal of this order, it appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Court that search and seizure operation of the authorities was carried out not only at the business premises of the petitioners but also at the banks as well wherein huge unexplained cash was deposited by the petitioners. 9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Department had refunded a sum of ₹ 90,57,138/- to the petitioners. On 16.08.2017, this Court passed the following order:- Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. A sum of ₹ 90,57,138/- has been refunded to the petitioner in the month of June/July 2017. Sri Ghildyal is awaiting instructions for the payment of interest on the said amount for the period it had remained with the department. On his request, list this case after two weeks by which time he will not only obtain instructions regarding the interest payable on the said amount but also give the names of the officers who have de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the said amount but also interest thereon from the date of withdrawal of the amount till the payment was made in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 18.05.2017. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chironjilal Sharma vs Union of India : 2016(14) SCC 811. Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- 5. A close look at the above provisions and, particularly, clause (b) of Section 132-B(4) of the Act clearly shows that where the aggregate of the amounts retained under Section 132 of the Act exceeds the amounts required to meet the liability under Section 132-B(1)(i), the Department is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent on expiry of six months from the date of the order under Section 132(5) of the Act to the date of the regular assessment or reassessment or the last of such assessments or reassessments, as the case may be. It is true that in the regular assessment done by the assessing officer, the tax liability for the relevant period was found to be higher and, accordingly, the seized cash under Section 132 of the Act was appropriated against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
