9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to how and under what circumstances the amount received by the petitioner during the period of more than six years is kept by him or he is carrying the same amount along with him wherever he is going or was with him on 23rd Jan., 2001. The petitioner has to give a convincing explanation for the cash found in his person on 23rd Jan., 2001 and if the explanation is not convincing enough then no prima facie case is made out in the matter and interference into the matter by a Writ Court is not warranted. finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioner, the petition is dismissed - Writ Petn. No. 1260 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2011 - Rajendra Menon, Vimla Jain, JJ. A.P. Singh for the Petitioner R.L. Jain for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said information. Sec. 132A of the IT Act reads as under:- "132A. Powers to requisition books of account, etc.:- (1) Where the Director General or Director or the Chief CIT or CIT, in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that:- (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (11 of 1992), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force then the Director General or Director or the Chief CIT or CIT may aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dl. Sessions Judge for release of the cash. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 28th June, 2001 on the ground that the cash cannot be released to the petitioner as warrant of requisition under s. 132A is already issued. However, after passing this order and rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner, the First Addl. Sessions Judge passed another order on 23rd Nov., 2001. Another order was passed that the cash can be released by the consent of the IT Department and the IT authorities are free to pass necessary order in the tax proceedings. Subsequently, on 3rd Sept., 2002, petitioner again made an application before the First Addl. Sessions Judge Bhopal for release of the seized amount and on 24th March, 2003 the First Addl. Sessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contending that the investigation having taken a long period of time has caused harassment to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. That apart, it is argued on merit that petitioner has disclosed the sources of income of the seized amount, therefore, he prays for interference into the matter. 6. Shri Jain learned counsel for the respondent Department has filed a detailed return and has pointed out that the investigation into the matter could not be completed due to the illegal order passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge Bhopal on 24th March, 2003 in MJC No. 6 of 2002 which is pending consideration before this Court in MCrC No. 2310 of 2003 wherein the entire proceeding is stayed by this Court. It is the case of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, it is pointed out by the respondent that due to order passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge and pendency of the matter before this Court, the respondent could not conclude the proceedings. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be quashed exercising extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The power for quashing the proceedings under s. 132A can be exercised by this Court only if prima facie material available on record or the explanation of the petitioner indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are received by the petitioner on 3rd June, 1994, 11th March, 1997 and on 7th Jan., 2001 and it is not known as to how and under what circumstances the amount received by the petitioner during the period of more than six years is kept by him or he is carrying the same amount along with him wherever he is going or was with him on 23rd Jan., 2001. The explanation given by the petitioner is not convincing enough to bring the same with the purview of the law laid down in the case of Vindhya Metal Corporation (supra). The petitioner has to give a convincing explanation for the cash found in his person on 23rd Jan., 2001 and if the explanation is not convincing enough then no prima facie case is made out in the matter and interference into the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
