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 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contained in Rule 112 F as well as the Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 after summoning the records. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to release the Cash of Rs.7,15,000/- either to Petitioner no.1 or to the petitioner no.2, since the same belongs to Petitioner no.1 and was being carried for depositing in the HDFC Bank at Varanasi was illegally seized. (c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Prohibition/Mandamus prohibiting/directing the oppoiste party no. 2 from assessing the petitioner U/s153A for the A.Y.2006-07 to 2011-12 as well as for the A.Y. 2012-13 and not to impose tax and realize the same. (d) Issue a writ order or direction in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lso issued to the petitioner no.2. Being aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after getting the Contract, the petitioner no. 2 - Sri Sanjai Agarwal was staying in the tourist bungalow at Gopiganj, Bhadohi. As he was authorized to collect the money from the Toll Plaza, he collected the money from the Toll Plaza for depositing the same in the HDFC Bank, which is the Principal Banker of the petitioner no.1. He was carrying the cash with 'carrying certificate' of the company. He submits that the cash collection was as under: Date Shift Time (hrs) Shift No. Collection (Rs.) 10.01.2012 00.00 to 08.00 1 1,92,610/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount to the assessing authority and requested to drop the proceedings initiated under section 153-A of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 to assessment year 2011-12 in view of Rule 112-F of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as well as Circular No.10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation (1997) 224 ITR 14 (SC), where the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has observed that: "Mere unexplained possession of the amount, without anything more, could hardly be said to constitute information which could be treated as sufficient by a reasonable person, leading to an inference that it was income, which would not have been d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s on 10.01.2012 plus one shift (ending on 08.00 am) on 11.01.2012. The explanation given by the petitioner no.2 was not found satisfactory. Lastly, he justified the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the cash was seized from the possession of the petitioner no.2 by the police who referred the matter to the Income Tax Department and after necessary approval, proceedings under section 132-A of the Act were initiated. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the amount should be released along with interest @18% as no proceedings can be initiated as per Rule 112 (F) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as well as Circular No.10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012. Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he absence of experience, small denomination currency was held up at the toll plaza. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation given by the petitioner prima-facie appears to be reasonable. The amount belongs to the company i.e. the petitioner no. 1 and certainly not to the petitioner no. 2, who is merely an employee of the company. The explanation, if any, will have to be sought from the petitioner-company. So, there is no occasion to start the proceedings U/s 153 A of the Act against the petitioner No. 2, who is simply an agent of the company. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the proceedings for the block period is not required in the case of the employee i.e. petitioner no.2 specially when no s .....

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