2013 (8) TMI 246 - HC - Income Tax

Return / Release of cash seized during search - section 132A - 30% of amount seized paid as income tax and Refund of remaining amount - Held that - seized amount should not be kept idle as dead investment . The amount seized from the first respondent herein could be utilized until the veracity of the case has been determined. Hence, the interim order is maintainable. Therefore, the part amount had been released to the accused on condition that he executes a bond with one surety for like sum on condition that he shall return the amount to the Court as and when required - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Seizure of cash by police during investigation
2. Dispute over ownership and return of seized cash
3. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in deciding ownership of seized money
4. Competence of Income Tax Department to investigate unexplained cash
5. Decision on returning part of the seized amount to the accused
6. Dispute over splitting the seized amount between the Department and the accused
7. Arguments regarding the return of the entire seized amount to the accused
8. Justification of the Magistrate's order and its impact on the Income Tax Department
9. Validity of the interim order releasing part of the seized amount to the accused

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of a significant amount of cash by the police during an investigation, leading to a legal dispute over the ownership and return of the seized money. The accused claimed the cash was for business purposes, while the Income Tax Department opposed the claim and sought the return of the entire amount.

2. The Magistrate, after considering arguments from both parties, decided to partially allow the claims. A portion of the seized amount was ordered to be returned to the accused, subject to certain conditions, while another portion was directed to be returned to the Income Tax Department. This decision was challenged by the Income Tax Department through a revision petition.

3. The Income Tax Department argued that the Magistrate erred in splitting the seized amount and returning only a part to the Department, contending that the entire seized amount should have been handed over to them for further investigation under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Department emphasized its authority to inquire into unexplained cash and highlighted discrepancies in the accused's financial records.

4. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused vehemently argued for the return of the entire seized amount, emphasizing that the accused, being an income tax assessee, was entitled to the money. The accused's counsel highlighted the disruption caused to the accused's reputation and business due to the case and expressed readiness to provide explanations to the Income Tax Department if required.

5. The Magistrate's decision to release part of the seized amount to the accused was upheld by the High Court, which found no fault in the Magistrate's conclusions. The Court justified the interim order, stating that the seized amount should not remain idle and could be utilized until the case's veracity was established. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate's order did not prejudice the interests of the Income Tax Department.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the Magistrate's order to return a portion of the seized amount to the accused under stringent conditions. The Court upheld the validity of the interim order and concluded that it was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →