9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Station vide CR No.9 of 2004 and Athawa police also informed the Income-tax Department regarding the seizure of cash amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. On the basis of this information, the present applicant made an inquiry regarding source of cash seized by Athawa police. During an inquiry, the Income-tax Department recorded the statement of respondent No. 2 under section 131 of the Income-tax Act and in his statement, he claimed that the cash seized by the police authorities belonged to Shri Babubhai Kishan Pawar, a resident of Kaldar Village, Dhulia District, Maharashtra. He has also stated that this cash was sent to respondent No. 2 for purchase of some unidentified land at Surat. He has also stated that he was unaware of any details except th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to take and to retain the said cash amount of Rs. 20 lakhs not only pending the conclusion of the criminal trial of the case but also in connection with the income-tax proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After hearing both the parties and learned Addl. P. P., the learned JMFC has rejected the claim of the present petitioner and ordered to hand over Rs. 14lakhs to respondent No. 2 and the remaining Rs. 6 lakhs was ordered to be handed over to the Deputy Director of Income-tax and imposed certain conditions vide order dated August 21, 2004. Against the said order, the present revision application is preferred by the present applicant. It is submitted by Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate, for the applicant, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody. Once the warrant of authorisation is issued against any person then the seized amount is required to be retained by the income-tax authority and without taking over of the said amount, no further proceedings can be started against any person, from whose custody the amount was recovered. The lower court has not properly appreciated the provisions of section 132A of the Income-tax Act and rejected the claim of the present petitioner and handed over the seized amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to respondent No. 2. During the assessment proceedings, if respondent No. 2 satisfies the income-tax authority, then he is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
