9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the tribunal and have acted contrary to the mandate and obligation imposed by Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). 2. Rajender Prasad Tyagi, respondent No.5 was subjected to search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act on 21st January, 1997. An amount of Rs.5,42,000/- was found at the residence, which was allotted to Tuleshwari Tyagi wife of Rajender Prasad Tyagi, at Satya Sadan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Seizure memo (annexure P-1) records the name of the persons searched as R.P. Tyagi and Tuleshwari Tyagi and mentions that Rs.5,32,310/- and Rs.17,000/- in different denominations notes were found at the time of search in one bedroom and store room of the house. Rs.5,25,000/- out of Rs.5,34,310/- was sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly asking for refund of the said amount and has written request letters dated 15th March, 2007, 20th September, 2007, 24th March, 2008, 20th August, 2008, 13th January, 2009, 5th February, 2009 and 26th March, 2009, etc. After a lapse of nearly three years, the Assessing Officer for the first time responded and asked the petitioner No.1 vide letter dated 8th April, 2009 to justify the claim of refund by filing documentary evidence. Reply was filed by the petitioner No.1 vide letter dated 2nd May, 2009. The Assessing Officer thereupon wrote letter dated 25th May, 2009/1st June, 2009 asking why the refund was being claimed by the petitioner No.1, as the seized cash could be adjusted against the demand created in the case of Rajender Prasad T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses received by him for representing a murder case at Gurgaon. The fees was received at the residence of his sister and thereafter he proceeded to Gurgaon from where he returned to his home at Meerut without picking it up from the residence of his sister. He could not come to Delhi, thereafter, and the said cash was seized at the time of search. 4.7 Smt. T.D. Tyagi and Sh. R.P. Tyagi at the time of search in their statements recorded on 21.01.1997 categorically stated that this amount of Rs.17,000/- was left by Sh. Yashbir Tyagi, Advocate and brother of Smt. T.D. Tyagi. This was also confirmed by Sh. Yashbir Tyagi in his affidavit and statement filed before the A.O. In fact, the affidavit and other confirming evidence from his client, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter. Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- on substantive basis in the case of the petitioner No. 1 was deleted by the tribunal by their order dated 13th January, 2006. Rs.5,25,000/- should have been refunded immediately thereafter. The department could not have adjusted the amount against the demand payable by Rajender Prasad Tyagi in view of the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) in the order dated 25.1.2001 that the amount belonged to petitioner No.1. It was not the money of respondent No. 5. We have recorded that there is no dispute between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 that the amount belongs to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 does not claim any right or interest on the said amount. 9. In view of the findings recorded above and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
