TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n end, till 4-7-2018, which is the date on which this second petition has been filed, is enough to dismiss the petition. It is neither maintainable, and assuming it is, the same is clearly barred by delay and laches. No assistance can be derived from the Assessment Order which, in any event, is dated 21-2-2009, or the communication at Page 50, dated 5-7-2017. It is shocking and surprising that Mr. Tiwari would argue that there is no period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing a Writ Petition to this Court. Admittedly, no appeal is filed to challenge the Assessment Order dated 21-2-2009 even after no cognisance is taken of the request to rectify it. Mr. Tiwari would submit that it is the respondent-Department's fault and when it fails to comply with this Court's order and addresses a communication at page 51 dated 11-10-2017, we must not throw out this petition on technical grounds - no writ petition could have been brought by relying on the communication from the Revenue. We are unable to agree with the petitioner for the simple reason that this Court is not obliged to entertain belated and stale claims. - WRIT PETITION NO.2079 OF 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 132(5), as it then stood, will be passed within a further period of 8 weeks of the first date of hearing, after re hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that if no notice under rule 112 A of the Income- tax Rules 1962 is issued within 12 weeks from today as directed, then the amount seized will be refunded to the petitioner with 6% simple interest from the date of the seizure till the date of return. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms. When this order was passed by this Court on 25 -3 -2008, all that the petitioner has done thereafter is to bring to the notice of the authorities this Court's order and direction. However, on 19 -9- 2008, he was informed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exhibit- D, Page 38) that the seized cash is not lying presently in the custody of the Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai. This fact was informed by letter of 8 -9 -2008. That is why the petitioner was requested to give information with regard to the seized cash so that the office expedites the matter. On 24- 10 -2008, identical reply was given by the Department to another communication of the petitioner of 19 -9 -2008. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 897,683/[Calculation attached for your reference] I, request you to refund the seized amount of ₹ 499,900.00 along with the interest due thereon at the earliest. I have attached copies of all the relevant documents for your reference and early expedition of my request. Yours faithfully, Sd/ KISHORE J. TANNA Encl: . 3. The petitioner says that the reply to this, dated 11 -10 -2017, would constitute an admission of liability and therefore this second or subsequent writ petition, filed on 4 7 2018, on the same cause of action is maintainable and in any event so also assuming it is maintainable, it is not barred by delay and laches. 4. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tiwari for in this letter the Department says nothing new. It only says through its Income Tax Officer (Technical), addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarter), New Delhi, that the petitioner is pressing for refund of the cash seized and he has submitted a copy of panchnama of the seized cash. That, according to this officer, would enable to search out the records and transfer the cash amount. 5. Pertinently, the petitioner knows that these deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this is an application for rectification of the mistake in the Assessment Order. This reads as under: Date: 17th May, 2010 To, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) Mumbai Dear Sir, Re: Mr. Kishore J. Tanna Sub: Rectification U/s. 154 of Assessment order passed U/s.143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act This is in reference to above we on behalf of our client acknowledge the receipt of your above order and wish to state as under. While passing the order you have accepted the income returned by our client. However while giving credit for taxed paid you have not given the credit for cash amounting to ₹ 5,00,000/= seized at the time of search. We wish to draw your kind attention to the letter dt. 19th September, 2009 written by you predecessor wherein he has confirmed that assessment U/s.132(h) is completed and seized cash is not to be retained (copy enclosed). The assessment U/s.143(3) is subsequently completed and no addition is made hence the seized cash retained by the Department towards taxed paid should be considered as tax credit and be refunded to my client. In view of above circumstances I request you to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
