9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank amounts, fixed deposits, bank lockers and other immovable properties as also to take steps to return the entire amounts collected by them from the respondent-bank on the basis of premature encashment of various fixed deposits. Having heard Mr. K. N. Jain, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. L. N. Rastogi, senior counsel for the income-tax authorities, as well as Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, senior counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. As would appear from the pleadings of the parties, no final order of assessment and penalty, etc., has yet been passed against the petitioners creating a demand against them in excess of the amount so deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfy the demand. But, however, Mr. Rastogi contended that seizure of documents, books of account, jewellery, other valuables including money deposits, etc. were effected under the provisions of section 132(1)(iii) of the Act because the petitioners were unable to explain the sources of such deposit. He further contended that as per section 132(1) of the Act, the Revenue authorities have full jurisdiction to search and seize such deposits including FDRs and other bank deposits. We have already noticed that on a bare reference to the various provisions of section 132 of the Act, one can safely hold that the income-tax authorities are duly authorised to seize any of the valuables including bank accounts and fixed deposits in appropriate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue authority were held unauthorised. It would be apt to notice a relevant passage of the report hereunder : "...It is no doubt well-settled that an amount in credit with the banker is always liable to attachment. An action in that behalf can be taken under sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Act. That provision contemplates a prohibitory order not to deal with the monies deposited by the petitioner except with the prior permission of the authority. Such an order would have been undoubtedly justified but the bank, in my opinion, could not have been directed under section 132(3) of the Act to convert the amount deposited by the petitioner by preparing a draft in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax. No provision of law was bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
