TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d finding has been accepted by the first appellate authority under the Act, i.e., the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order has become final. Prima facie it appears that Section 132(3) is meant to deal with the cases where there is difference or dispute between two or more persons as to whom the money belongs. In the present case, no such issue or question arises - Decided in favour of petitioner. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 987/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. M. P. Raju, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. N. P. Sahni, sr. standing counsel for R-1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (ORAL):- Securi Tech India Pvt. Ltd., petitioner No.1 has filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demands payable by Rajender Prasad Tyagi. Rajender Prasad Tyagi, however, succeeded in first appeal and addition in his hands was deleted vide order dated 25th January, 2001 by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and it was held that this amount of Rs.5,25,000/- belonged to the petitioner No.1. Consequent upon the said order, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order dated 28th March, 2002 and added Rs.5,25,000/- on account of the cash seized on substantive basis to the income of the petitioner No.1. This addition was challenged before the first appellate authority and then before the tribunal. Tribunal by their order dated 13th January, 2006 quashed the original assessment order dated 25th January, 1999 made under Section 158 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which read:- 4.3 The cash of Rs.5,25,000/- was not found from the bedroom or from the personal possession of the appellant but from the room wherein records and consumer containing entries of M/s Securi Tech India Pvt. Ltd. were kept by virtue of going a camp office of the said company operating from theses premises. 4.4 Thus, the fact of ownership of cash confirmed by the persons connected to M/s Securi Tech India Pvt. Ltd. So, it cannot be presumed to be belonging to any other person. 4.5 The Department did not have any evidence to reject the statement of the assessee and the owners of the cash so found. Merely, on surmises and conjectures the same could not be assessed or presumed to be the undisclosed income of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant cannot be deemed to be the owner of the said cash as he has been able to discharge his onus. 7. It is clear from the above quote that the CIT (Appeals) has held that the money belonged to petitioner No.1 and the amount seized Rs.5,25,000/- did not belong to any other person. The balance amount of Rs.17,000/- it was held belonged to one Yashvir Tyagi and has been assessed as his income under Section 158 BC. This order of the CIT (Appeals), as noted above, has been accepted by the Revenue and it has not been challenged or questioned. 8. We fail to understand that once the department has accepted the said order and treated Rs.5,25,000/- as income and money of petitioner No.1 and this was/is also the stand of respondent No.5, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epts that the amount/refund should be paid to the petitioner No. 1. As already noted above, the case of the respondent No.5 throughout has been that the money does not belong to him and the said finding has been accepted by the first appellate authority under the Act, i.e., the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order has become final. Prima facie it appears that Section 132(3) is meant to deal with the cases where there is difference or dispute between two or more persons as to whom the money belongs. In the present case, no such issue or question arises. In these circumstances, Section 132(3) need not be interpreted as the question is of merely academic interest. 10. Amount of Rs.5,25,000/- along with interest is lying deposited in this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|