Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (8) TMI 444 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking the return of seized amount by Excise officials.
2. Dismissal of application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by Magistrate.
3. Allegation of lack of response from employee and Income Tax Department.
4. Petitioner's plea for the return of the amount from Income Tax authorities.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested the return of the seized amount by Excise officials, which was in possession of the local police after being seized from his employee while traveling. The petitioner sought the intervention of the court to direct the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Director General of Income Tax to return the amount, which he claimed belonged to him originally.

2. The Magistrate initially dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the return of the money, citing the non-appearance of the employee despite summons. However, upon the petitioner's appeal to the High Court, the Magistrate was directed to reconsider the application, taking into account the circumstances and the employee's statement expressing no objection to releasing the money to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner highlighted that the employee, who was a resident of Tamil Nadu and illiterate, had not responded to the summons issued by the Magistrate's Court. Despite the lack of response, the employee stated that he had no objection to the money being returned to the petitioner. The Income Tax Department had not initiated any proceedings against the petitioner, and the petitioner provided proof of the source of the funds.

4. The High Court observed that the Income Tax Department had not taken any action against the petitioner, and the employee's lack of response to the summons could be attributed to his circumstances. To ensure justice, the court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking before the Magistrate's Court to return the amount if released by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner was instructed to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with a bond to make the amount available if required by the department, leading to the release of the seized amount within a specified timeframe.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates