9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggage was seized by the first respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner also voluntarily disclosed to the first respondent that another amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs is also in the possession of the petitioner and the same has been kept in the other baggage which has been sent to the cabin of the aircraft. Then the first respondent brought the cabin baggage and the same was also opened and cash found in it namely, a sum of Rs. 5.75 lakhs was also seized by the first respondent. The petitioner informed the first respondent that a total amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs which is in his possession is the amount received by him from Deedi Automobiles, Trivandrum, who have purchased the 1/3rd share of the petitioner in the 36 cents of land and the building situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the Income-tax Officers came to the domestic airport at Trivandrum and took possession of the entire amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs possessed by the petitioner on the basis of exhibit P-2 panchanama. Copy of exhibit P-1 was also seized by the Income-tax Officers on the basis of exhibit P-2. Exhibit P-3 is the news item which appeared in English and Malayalam dailies, relating to this incident. Though several requests were made by the petitioner for the return of the money seized from him to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, they did not elicit any satisfactory response. On October 22, 1997, the petitioner submitted exhibit P-4 representation before the second respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax, requesting him to transfer the amount of Rs. 11.75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order exhibit P-5 can be legally sustained and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of the case (Rs. 11.75 lakhs) seized from him on October 1, 1997, from the domestic airport at Trivandrum with market rate interest (?) from October 1, 1997, as prayed. In this context, the first and foremost point to be borne in mind is the fact that the money which the petitioner was carrying during his travel from Trivandrum to Madras on October 1, 1997, is the money received by him from Deedi Automobiles being part of the sale consideration of the petitioner's 1/3rd share in the land and the building scheduled to exhibit P-1. Exhibit P-2 panchanama itself shows that exhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his source of money seized from him at the time of seizure itself, I do not think that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 will be justified in retaining the money on the specious plea that the proceedings initiated against Deedi Automobiles for suppressing income are still pending. Exhibit P-5 communication sent to the petitioner by the Income-tax Department would show that the amount has been seized on the ground that if is the undisclosed income of Deedi Automobiles. The Department has no case that the money seized is the undisclosed income of the petitioner. That apart, there is no dispute whatsoever between the petitioner and Deedi Automobiles with regard to the money in question. Thus, on a totality of the facts and circumstances brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132A(1)(c) of the Act was challenged before the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the condition precedent for the exercise of power under the said provision was not satisfied. After examining the file containing the order passed by the Commissioner, the High Court has observed that the information on the basis of which the Commissioner had issued the warrant of authorisation was as follows : "(a) a sum of Rs. 4,63,000 had been seized by the Government Railway Police from the possession of one Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Imamganj, Durga Devi, Mirzapur ; (b) at the time of the seizure by the Railway Police, no papers or documents in regard to the ownersh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of the Act. The mere fact that Vinod Kumar Jaiswal was in possession of this amount and did not have any documents with him regarding its ownership or possession could not be treated as appears to have been done by the Commissioner as information relatable to a conclusion that it represented income which would not have been disclosed by Vinod Kumar Jaiswal for purposes of the Act. 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 disclosed by the person in possession for purposes of the Acts. " In appeal, the apex court having cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
