9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - along with interest to the petitioners. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have pleaded in the petition that petitioner No. 1, works as commission agent in Textile Industry and from his possession Rs. 14,00,000/- were seized by the Mandal Police, Bhilwara. The petitioner No.2-6 are businessmen based in Vijaynagar whose money is said to be carried by petitioner No. 1 to make the payment to Marudhar Textile. The petitioner No. 7 is said to be widow of the petitioner and mother of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No. 9 is wife of the petitioner No. 1 who is said to be a Tutor by profession. It has been pleaded that on 02.04.2018 when the petitioner No. 1 was on his way to Bhilwara, some police personnel stopped his car by barricading for inspection. It is alleged on inspection of his car an amount of Rs. 14,000,00/- was found by the Police personnel. The petitioners have pleaded in his petition that amount so recovered from him (petitioner no. 1) was well explained by him as he was asked to deposit certain amount with one Marudhar Taxtiles of Bhilwara for business transactions. The petitioner also explained that some part of money belonged to petitioner's mothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to believe any assets of a person which represents either wholly or partly, income or property, of which has not been disclosed for the purpose of Income Tax Act,1922, and the action cannot be taken in "absence of information" and "reason to believe" that somebody is in possession of either assets or any other property, which is not disclosed for Income Tax purpose. Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case, the respondents are required to furnish the information in their possession which led to believe them that the petitioner was carrying cash without being disclosed, as per requirements of the Income Tax Act,1961. Learned counsel has further submitted that recording of satisfaction is a condition precedent before initiating any action under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel has submitted that if the money seized is fully explained and backed by affidavits and certificates issued by third party, the money so seized, is illegally been retained by the Income Tax authority. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Court of ACJM (Mandal), District Bhilwara has also rejected the application for release of seized amount without considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, then, the [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Director or] Director] or the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] may authorise any [Additional Director, Additional Commissioner,] [Joint Director], [Joint Commissioner], [Assistant Director [or Deputy Director]], [Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner] or Income-tax Officer] (hereafter in this section and in sub-section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer. 66a[Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.] inserted by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f.1.10.1975. (2) On a requisition being ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 132A of the Act, 1961, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The explanation so added is reproduced hereunder: 66a[Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.] inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.10.1975. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation (supra) has laid down the law that mere unexplained possession of the amount, without anything more, could hardly constitute information leading to an inference that the said amount is income which would not have been disclosed by the person in whose possession the amount is recovered, this Court finds that the Supreme Court was considering the direction issued by the High Court where the High Court after recording the finding that warrant of authorization was issued by the Officer concerned only on the basis of information received that there was certain money in possession of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings initiated under Section 132 of the Act were invalid for the reason that it cannot be based on a search conducted on a train by the police authorities and, therefore, the proceedings initiated for block assessment period 1st April, 1991 to 3rd June, 2000 are without jurisdiction. 7. This plea was not raised by the appellant before any of the authorities. Further, we find that in view of the amendment made in Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal as recorded by Income Tax Authority under Section 132 or Section 132A. We, therefore, cannot go into that question at all. Even otherwise, we find that the explanation given by the appellant regarding the amount of cash of Rs. 30 lacs found by the GRP and seized by the authorities has been disbelieved and has been treated as income not recorded in the Books of Account maintained by it. 8. In view of the above, we do not find infirmity in the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is dismissed." (Emphasis supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
