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

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . - the seized amount should not be kept idle as "dead investment". The amount seized from the first respondent herein could be utilized until the veracity of the case has been determined. Hence, the interim order is maintainable. Therefore, the part amount had been released to the accused on condition that he executes a bond for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with one surety for likesum on condition that he shall return the amount to the Court as and when required. Therefore, the learned Magistrate's order will not be prejudicial to the interest of the Income Tax Department - Decided against the revenue. - Crl.R.C.No.1584 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2013 - C. S. Karnan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Rangasamy Special Public Prosecutor f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Crl.M.P.No.854 of 2004 for the return of the cash. 3. On considering the averments of both parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate on considering that the counsel for the petitioner had agreed for retention of 30% of the seized amount to be paid to Income Tax, ordered that 30% of the seized amount is to be paid to the Income Tax Department subject to the outcome of the final assessment. The seized amount of Rs.8,07,050/- has been deposited in Corporation Bank, Egmore, by the learned Magistrate Court on 31.10.2003. 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the claim in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2004 and a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was ordered to be returned to the petitioner on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce and finally filed a report stating that the case was referred as "further action dropped". Subsequently, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order on the said case, especially the return of cash to the accused. Actually, the Income Tax Authorities are vested with the powers of investigation regarding unexplained cash seized from the accused, as such, the Income Tax Department is entitled to receive the entire seized amount. The learned Magistrate has failed to understand the purpose for which Section 132 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is introduced in the Statute book which relates to the pre-assessment stage, but the reason given by the learned Magistrate that the Department is not entitled to seize the amount, seize .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2003, in limine, considering the present circumstances. Therefore, nothing is surviving on the file of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the first respondent is entitled to receive the entire seized amount without any condition. The action of the Sub Inspector of Police had disturbed the first respondent's reputation, business and place including his time. If the Income Tax Department issued any show cause notice regarding the unexplained cash, he is prepared to provide suitable explanation. However, the respondent is put into hardship since a false case has been foisted against the respondent, subsequently, the Income Tax Department also came into the picture on the suo-moto order of the Magistrate. 10. The learned counsel for the State .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... very competent counsel prays to dismiss the above revision. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the impugned common order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any lapse in the conclusions arrived at regarding the return of money in part to the accused on a stringent condition. This Court's further view is that the seized amount should not be kept idle as "dead investment". The amount seized from the first respondent herein could be utilized until the veracity of the case has been determined. Hence, the interim order is maintainable. Therefore, the part amount had been released to the accused on condition that he executes a bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates