9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to prove that any illegal raid was conducted by the Income Tax Authorities and he has also failed to prove the damages suffered by him. So, no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present regular second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. - RSA No. 3593 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 31-8-2015 - K. C. Puri, J. For the Petitioner : Mr S. S. Dinarpur, Adv JUDGMENT K. C. Puri, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2013 passed by Sh. M.M. Dhohchak, Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2010 passed by Dr. Virender Parshad, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra was dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case of plaintiff-appellant are that appellant-plaintiff was a registered partnership firm and Dharam Pal Goel was its registered partner, who had filed the suit. During the financial years 1992-1993 to 1995-1996, the appellant-plaintiff firm had been carrying on the business of paddy shelling/husking under the name and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2 was without legs and had been passed in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same was legally unjustified and not sustainable. The representations dated 15.11.1995, 19.6.1996, 13.7.1996 and 5.9.1996 were made to respondent-defendant No. 2 and 3 for revocation of seizure order dated 17.10.1995 but the said representations were not decided intentionally. An assessment order for the alleged block period i.e. assessment years 1986- 87 to 1996-97 was passed by respondent-defendant No. 3 on 26/27.9.1997. However, after that no order regarding utilization of stock lying under deemed seizure order was passed. The appellant-plaintiff firm offered to defendantsrespondents to purchase the stocks at the value being imposed by the respondents-defendants without prejudice to the right of the appellantplaintiff firm, but in vain. Ultimately, the appellant-plaintiff filed writ petition No. 11567 of 1998 before this Court. In pursuance of order dated 17.9.1998 passed by this Court, stock of rice under deemed seizure order dated 17.10.1995 had been sold on dated 27.11.1998 for ₹ 11,00,000/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be on lease with the appellant-plaintiff firm. The premises of M/s Saraswati Rice Sheller was also covered under survey under Section 133A(1) of the Income Tax Act simultaneously on 26.9.1995. An inventory of the stock found in said premises was also prepared. As was evident from the said inventory, no stock of paddy, rice and rice bran was found in the said premises. It was denied that the officer conspired with respondent-defendant No. 2 to issue restraint order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, illegally. There was every likelihood of accretion of undisclosed income. The seized stock was subsequently sold and the proceeds thereof were adjusted against the outstanding tax demand in the assessee s case. The respondents-defendants had no personal enmity with the appellant-plaintiff firm, therefore, the question of having any intention to cause loss to the appellant-plaintiff firm did not arise at all. The deemed seizure order dated 17.10.1995 was perfectly legal and justified. The stock put under seizure was sold in order to effect the recovery of outstanding tax demand as per the orders of this Court and the said stock was sold at ₹ 675/- per quintal. The stock o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he officials of the department were manhandled and the record was snatched by one Shri Nitin Goyal and Nalin Goyal, close relatives of the appellant-plaintiff and their driver, as a result of which, an FIR was also lodged by the said officer with the Police Station, City Thanesar. Separate proceedings under Section 275-A of the Income Tax for violation of the order passed under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act had already been initiated against the appellant-plaintiff firm. The plaintiff, in fact, himself sold away the entire stock which was placed under seizure on 17.10.1995 which included rice, rice bran etc. Therefore, no loss whatsoever was caused to the appellant-plaintiff. Other allegations made in the plaint were denied. The suit was also resisted on the grounds of maintainability, limitation and jurisdiction of the Court. Replication to the written statement was filed wherein the averments made in the plaint were reasserted and those of the written statement were controverted. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:- 1) Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest @ 2% per month from 31.12.1998 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
