Search and Seizer - restraint Order u/s 132(3) - Whether discloser of Bank Account is sufficient ground to avoid restraint on operation of the bank account.

The Answer is No.

In a very recent judgment, honorable Supreme Court has delivered a ruling on the similar issue.

Fact of the Case:

Restraint from operating her Savings Bank account  order was passed during the month of August 2005.

Appellant contented that, existence of the lockers and the bank accounts were disclosed by the appellants in the regular books of account maintained. It was further submitted that the computers which contained the details of the bank accounts were available at the business premises. Therefore since the disclosed in the regular books of account and there was no justification for keeping the restraint on the operation for the bank accounts.

Discussions and Findings of the Apex Court:

1 Now the law is well settled that when moneys are deposited in a Bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of the debtor and creditor and not trustee and beneficiary.

2 "Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the owner, it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.  The money paid into the bankers, is money known by the customer to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; It is then the banker's money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit on it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. He is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it, he is not answerable to the customer if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the customer, but he is, of course, answerable for the amount because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the customer, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. That has been the subject of discussion in various cases, and that has been established to be the relative situation of banker and customer.  That being established, to be the relative situation of banker and customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a debtor."      

Decisions of the honorable Supreme Court:

The Apex court dismissed the appeal of the appellant without granting any relief but passed the following directions:

(i) In view of the non challenge to the order passed under Section 132B, no relief can be granted to the appellants.

(ii) However, it would be in the interests of the assessee as well as the revenue if the amount transferred to the PD account of the Commissioner is kept in interest bearing fixed deposit as ultimately  in the event the assessee succeeds, would be entitled to interest as provided in the statute.  The assessment has to be completed on or before 31st March, 2008 i.e. within the time statutorily provided. 

(For full text of judgment - visit 2008 -TMI - 2895 - Supreme Court of India - Income Tax)