9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Income Tax authorities during the course of survey seized cash amounting to Rs. 64,56,970/- and impounded the books of account. Besides cash, incriminating evidence were found at the premises of the petitioners. These documents indicated that the petitioners were taking cash from various parties and returning the money via cheques to the same parties in the guise of unsecured loan and long term capital gain (LTGC). 3. The statement of one of the directors, Sri Gaya Prasad Gupta was recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Act, who was asked to explain the source of cash found at the premises of the petitioners. However, he failed to explain the source of cash. Sri Gupta was further ask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust the seized amount against the liability to be determined on the completion of assessment under Section 153-A of the Act as per the provisions of Section 132-A of the Act. 5. Petitioner No.1 had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Tax No.458 of 2015 for quashing of the search made by the Income Tax Authorities on 28.04.2015 under Section 132 of the Act at premises No.7/125, C-2, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur with a further prayer to return the records so seized under the search. 6. This Court called for original record from the authorities and after perusing the record and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties vide final judgment and order dated 07.07.2015 held that the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 18.05.2017 passed the following order in the present writ petition:- "Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra,J. During the search operations an amount of Rs. 64,56,970/- which was found in cash in the premises of petitioner no. 1 was seized by the Income Tax Department. It was deposited in the bank account of petitioner no. 1. After deposit of the aforesaid amount a total of Rs. 1,55,14,108/- was withdrawn from the bank accounts of petitioner no. 1 and the other petitioners and was taken away by the department. Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department was called upon to pin point if such amount was withdrawn and if so under what authority and how the bank had permitted withdrawal of money from the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities was carried out not only at the business premises of the petitioners but also at the banks as well wherein huge unexplained cash was deposited by the petitioners. 9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Department had refunded a sum of Rs. 90,57,138/- to the petitioners. On 16.08.2017, this Court passed the following order:- "Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. A sum of Rs. 90,57,138/- has been refunded to the petitioner in the month of June/July 2017. Sri Ghildyal is awaiting instructions for the payment of interest on the said amount for the period it had remained with the department. On his request, list this case after two weeks by which time he will not only obtain instructions re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t writ petition. 13. We are, therefore, of the view that present writ petition ought not to have been filed as it is not maintainable because cause of action remains the same in both the writ petitions. 14. Be that as it may, we have considered the submissions of the parties on merit as well. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the assessment proceedings under Section 153-A of the Act have not yet been finalised. The petitioners have not been co-operating in the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the assessment proceedings under Section 153-A of the Act are taking time for their completion. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the authorities did not have power to withdraw the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer was overturned by the Tribunal finally on 20-2-2004. As a matter of fact, the interest for the post-assessment period i.e. from 4-3-1994 until refund on the excess amount has already been paid by the Department to the assessee. The Department denied the payment of interest to the assessee under Section 132-B(4)(b), according to Mr Arijit Prasad, the learned counsel for the Revenue on the ground that the refund of excess amount is governed by Section 240 of the Act and Section 132-B(4)(b) of the Act has no application. But, in our view, Section 132-B(4)(b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and Section 240 or for that matter Section 244-A. The former deals with pre-assessment period in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
