9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retention of seized assets under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Levy of interest on demands without adjusting money seized under the Act. 3. Entitlement to interest on amounts found in excess of liabilities under Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Retention of Seized Assets under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioners sought the return of jewellery seized on December 4, 1979, under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer retained the jewellery under an order dated February 18, 1980, passed under Section 132(5) of the Act, rejecting the explanation for the jewellery's acquisition and treating it as income from undisclosed sources. The regular assessment for the year 1980-81 valued the jewellery at Rs. 1,22,211, accepting the explanation for jewellery worth Rs. 1,12,211 and adding Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, these additions were deleted. The petitioners argued that retention of jewellery was unjustified if the cash seized was adjusted against their liabilities. The court noted that under Section 132(5), the Income-tax Officer could retain assets only to satisfy the aggregate of tax, interest, and penalty estimated. The court found no "existing liability" on the date of the order under Section 132(5), as existing liability refers to liabilities determined till that date under statutory provisions. 2. Levy of Interest on Demands Without Adjusting Money Seized under the Act: The court examined the provisions of Section 132B, which state that seized assets can be applied only to satisfy existing liabilities as of the date of the order under Section 132(5) and liabilities for assessment years relevant to the previous years to which the income referred to in Section 132(5)(i) relates. The court concluded that the tax and incidental liabilities for assessment years after the date of seizure could not be realized from the seized assets. The court emphasized that the respondents could not retain assets on the grounds of subsequent liabilities arising under the Act, as this was not supported by the Act's provisions. 3. Entitlement to Interest on Amounts Found in Excess of Liabilities under Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act: The court held that the Central Government must pay interest at the prescribed rate if the amount retained exceeds the aggregate amount referred to in Section 132B(1)(i). In this case, the value of the seized assets was much higher than the aggregate adjustable liabilities. Therefore, the remainder should have been returned to the petitioners with interest as required under Sections 132B(3) and (4). The court directed the respondents to return the seized assets forthwith and held that the petitioners were entitled to interest on amounts found in excess of the aggregate liabilities. Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondents acted without authority of law in retaining the seized assets and directed their immediate return, along with interest as mandated under Section 132B(3) and (4). The writ application was allowed without costs.
|
