9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Saritha Gupta, the balance of fixed deposit receipts will be released at the earliest. At this stage, it is required to be noted that there is no demand of outstanding reported in the case of Sandeep Gupta. Thus, after adjustment of outstanding demand of ₹ 9,24,501/= shown as outstanding in the case of Saritha Gupta, the balance fixed deposit receipt as well as the jewellery seized during the course of search conducted on 08.09.2010 is required to be returned. There is no justification to continue with the seizure of such fixed deposit receipts, jewellery and national savings certificates etc. [after deducting ₹ 9,24,501/= (with interest under the law)], shown to be outstanding in the case of one of the assessees – ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in making addition of long term capital gain on financial assets, as pointed out in various applications of the petitioner at Annexure H (Collectively) to the present petition, C. Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction inter alia directing the respondent authorities to release third party assets seized during search operation, as pointed in various applications of the petitioner at Annexure G colly , with immediate effect in the interest of justice. 5. However, it is required to be noted that the main issue in both the petitions is the non-return of the fixed deposit receipts and the jewellery seized during the search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order were passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Ahmedabad and aggregate demand of ₹ 19,80,445/= was determined. 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a penalty order under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act in March 2017 by raising a demand of ₹ 7,97,233/- for various years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012. From the correspondence by the Assessing Officer addressed to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, which is directed to be taken on record and the copy of which is given to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, it appears that the assessee filed various rectification applications as credits for regular payments were not allowed in the orders giving effect to the CIT (A) s order. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amount payable by the assessee Saritha Gupta was ₹ 9,24,501/=. It appears that the assessee requested to release the cash seized during the course of search proceedings. However, the assessee was informed that the entire cash of ₹ 21,47,000/= seized during the search was adjusted against the demand outstanding of Saritha Gupta and Sandeep Gupta. The details are as under :- In the case of Saritha Gupta : Cheque Credit Date Asstt. Year Minor Head Amount 21/02/2014 2005-06 400 2,37,655/- 21/02/2014 2006-07 400 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears that there is no question of return and/or release of cash seized during the proceedings as the same were already adjusted earlier in the year 2014. 11. However, the question still remains with respect to return of fixed deposit receipts and jewellery seized during the search under Section 132 of the Act on 08.09.2010 and search under the panchnama dated 09.09.2010, the particulars of which are stated hereinabove. 12. Considering the correspondences, it is the case on behalf of the revenue that as on date, a sum of ₹ 9,24,501/= (with interest under the law) is outstanding in the case of the assessee Smt. Saritha Gupta. 13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated at the Bar that after adjustment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
