9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in purported exercise of its/his powers under the Standard Operating Procedure Order / Instructions dated 29.05.2015. The same was requisitioned by the 2nd Respondent in purported exercise of its power/authority under Section 132A of the Act. Purusant to which the assets (monies) seized was handed over by the 4th Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. The present writ petition is filed seeking release of the sum so seized forthwith by the 2nd Respondent. 3. Before proceeding further, it may be necessary to set out the facts of the case very briefly: a) The 1st petitioner herein viz., "Leo Charitable Trust, Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi District" is a registered Charitable Trust. The 1st petitioner is registered under Section 12 AA of the Act vide proceedings dated 12.11.2014. b) The object of the trust is to establish Educational Institutions for the upliftment and social advancement of the poor. With that object, the 1st petitioner established a School in the name of "St.Assisi Matriculation Higher Secondary School" (hereinafter referred to as "School") at St.Mary's Nagar, M.K.V.K.G. Saw Mill Road, Pavoorchatram, Tirunelveli District, which is stated to be a selffinanced minority inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested the Income Tax authorities to return the money as the 1st petitioner may also have to face consequences of violating the provisions of the Act, which mandates that to constitute a "Charitable Institution", 85% of the income derived in a financial year must be applied within the said financial year for charitable purpose. Failure to comply with the above condition would constitute violation inviting consequence under the Act. The representation of the 1st petitioner dated 18.03.2019 was submitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) and was forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) through a communication dated 18.03.2019 as a "mis-sent thapal". i) The 1st petitioner submitted its representation to the 2nd respondent on 23.04.2019 and to the 3rd respondent on 05.07.2019. The 1st petitioner submitted Form No.10 statement before the Income Tax Department on 02.08.2019, on 03.08.2019, the 1st petitioner submitted a report to the Income Tax Department in Form 10 in terms of Section 11 read with Rule 17(2) of the Act, wherein, it was stated that the seized amount of Rs.68,14,000/- is set apart for carrying out the duties of the Trust. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of the petitioner seeking for release of the seized cash is under consideration by the respondents." k) Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 was passed by the 1st respondent wherein it was found that the amount of Rs.68,14,000/- requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act has been legally made and after referring to Section 132B of the Act, it was observed that the proper course of action for the assessee would be to follow the proceedings as per the procedure prescribed under Section 132B of the Act with regard to return of the requisitioned assests/money. While so, on 17.12.2021, the 3rd respondent rejected the request for release of cash on the premise that the nature of the source of cash was not satisfactorily explained, warranting action under Section 132 A of the Act. 4. The above action of the respondents in purported exercise under the Act is challenged inter alia on the following grounds: a. That the issue relating to the legality of requisition proceedings under Section 132 A of the Act, in respect of cash seized by the 4th respondent, in terms of the Standing Operating Procedure dated 29.05.2015 stands resolved by the judgment of the Patna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of accounts or other documents and not to leave without the prior permission of the officer. As a matter of fact, this Court was informed that an order of assessment dated 29.04.2021 has been made, treating the above sum as unexplained income in the hands of Anthony Xavier/ 2nd petitioner, the managing trustee. It is stated that an appeal has been filed by the 2nd petitioner/managing trustee and the same is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. 6. In the light of the subsequent development viz., orders of assessment having been passed in the name of 2nd petitioner herein treating the monies seized as unexplained income in his hands and an appeal having been preferred challenging the orders of assessment, question arises as to its bearing on the present writ petition. In other words whether it would be appropriate for this court to continue to hear the issues involved in the present writ petition in view of the subsequent development. It is settled that Courts would take judicial notice of subsequent events if it has an impact on the issue/questions raised or the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the case. In this regard, it may be relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore this Court and in fact the issue is pending before the appellate authority. It was submitted by the petitioners that the relief sought for in the present writ petition and the challenge in the present writ petition is only with reference to the legality of the seizure in terms of the Standing Orders issued by the Election Commission and the consequent requisition of the asset(money) so seized by the Income Tax Department and would not have any bearing as to the validity of the orders of assessment made on the 2nd petitioner. The above argument is devoid of merit. 8. It is important to bear in mind that a Trust is an independent assessable unit for the purpose of income tax and distinct from the trustee viz., 2nd petitioner herein, who is subject to assessment in his individual capacity. To repeat, a look at the facts would show that to resolve the controversy raised in the writ petition and to direct the return of the seized money, would necessarily require this court to examine the title over the assets seized from 2nd petitioner herien viz., whether it belongs to 1st or 2nd petitioner. The Income Tax Department having already proceeded to find that the money seized belongs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
