2013 (10) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Return of seized money - section 132A - The highly competent senior Special Public Prosecutor argued that ordering to return only part of the seized amount is contrary to law and facts of the case. As per Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Department is empowered to enquire into the unexplained cash seized from the first respondent and had assessed the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Held that - this Court does not find any lapse in the conclusions arrived at regarding the return of money in part to the accused on a stringent condition. - the 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 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with one surety for likesum on condition that he shall return the amount to the Court as and when required. Therefore, the learned Magistrate s order will not be prejudicial to the interest of the Income Tax Department - Decided against the revenue.

Issues:
1. Seizure of cash from accused by Sub Inspector of Police.
2. Petitioner's claim for return of seized cash for business purpose.
3. Order by Magistrate to pay 30% of seized amount to Income Tax Department.
4. Partial allowance of claims in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2004 and Crl.M.P.No.854 of 2004.
5. Revision filed by Income Tax Department against Magistrate's order.
6. Competing arguments regarding return of seized amount.
7. Decision on the maintainability of the interim order and release of part amount to accused.

Seizure of Cash and Petitioner's Claim:
The accused was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police with a substantial amount of cash, leading to a case being registered under relevant sections. The accused claimed the cash was for business purposes, prompting the Magistrate to involve the Income Tax Department to ascertain the legitimacy of the seized money.

Order to Pay 30% to Income Tax Department:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Magistrate ordered 30% of the seized amount to be paid to the Income Tax Department, subject to final assessment. The remaining cash was to be retained by the accused on certain conditions.

Partial Allowance of Claims:
The Magistrate partially allowed the claims in both Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2004 and Crl.M.P.No.854 of 2004. A portion of the seized amount was ordered to be returned to the petitioner, while the rest was directed to be given to the Income Tax Department.

Revision by Income Tax Department:
The Income Tax Department filed a revision challenging the Magistrate's order, arguing that the entire seized amount should have been returned to them as per the Income Tax Act. They contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to decide on the case and that the accused failed to provide adequate explanations regarding the source of the cash.

Competing Arguments and Decision on Interim Order:
Both sides presented strong arguments regarding the return of the seized amount. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to release a part of the cash to the accused on stringent conditions, emphasizing that the money should not remain idle. The Court found the interim order maintainable and not prejudicial to the Income Tax Department's interests, ultimately dismissing the revision and confirming the Magistrate's order.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues surrounding the seizure of cash, the petitioner's claim, the Magistrate's order to pay part of the amount to the Income Tax Department, the partial allowance of claims, the revision filed by the Income Tax Department, and the decision on the maintainability of the interim order and release of part of the seized amount to the accused.

← Previous Next →