9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act "). The raiding party seized cash amount of Rs. 51,000. On March 15, 1984, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Rajkot, passed an order releasing an amount of Rs. 43,250 but retained Rs. 7,750. An assessment order was passed on March 15, 1984, wherein it was observed by the Income-tax Officer that the petitioner had failed to explain an amount of Rs. 16,474 in connection with two cash entries of Rs. 1,474 and Rs. 15,000, respectively, in the accounts of Asha Industries and Esvi Industries, respectively, in which the petitioner was a partner. The said amount was, therefore, added and the petitioner was held liable to pay tax of Rs. 4,950. According to the petitioner, the said amount was tax liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard of Direct Taxes, Income-tax Department, New Delhi, for non-payment of interest. But the Chairman also did not reply. In these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court. Initially, notice was issued and thereafter the matter was admitted. Today the matter was called out for final hearing. Mr. D. U. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is no doubt true that the Department has paid an amount of Rs. 7,750 to which the petitioner was entitled. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest in accordance with the provisions of section 132B(4). The relevant part of section 132B reads as under : " Application of retained assets.-- (1) The assets retained under sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 132B(4) read with section 243. Since the petitioner is entitled to interest and as it is not paid, the petition requires to be allowed by directing the respondent-authorities to pay the interest to the petitioner according to law. In our opinion, Mr. Shah is also right in contending that even after various requests and repeated communications, the petitioner is deprived of this legitimate claim of interest and was obliged to approach this court. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner may be awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent. from the date of filing of the petition. In the result, this petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondent-authorities will pay interest to the petitioner for retention of an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
