9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for carrying and, ultimately they were found to contain cash of Rs. 2,29,579 and some other valuables in other parcels. It is also stated that these parcels were handed over to the petitioner on behalf of his employers and they do not belong to the petitioner. The statement was said to have been recorded on November 4, 1986, and the money and other articles were said to have been taken possession of by the respondent from the Station House Officer, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Madras-1, under section 132A of the Income-tax Act. It is also stated that the respondent has passed an order on February 25, 1987, under section 132(5) of the Act determining the total tax payable at Rs. 3,620.70. It is also stated that the regular assessment of the petitioner was completed on March 30, 1990, accepting the return of income made by the petitioner under section 143(3) of the Act. In the light of the final orders passed, the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to the return of the money and the jewellery as well as the diamonds seized from him and, consequently, he moved this court with this writ petition, since, according to the petitioner, the representation made before the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the petitioner is giving conflicting statements to mislead the Income-tax Department and also to deliberately refrain from identifying the ostensible owner of the assets found from him. It is also claimed that an enquiry was initiated under rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules read with section 132(5) of the Act to identify and locate the owner of the assets and in spite of three or four letters, there was no co-operation from the employer of the petitioner and likewise some of the addressees to whom certain jewellery and diamonds were said to have been consigned had deposed before the authorities that they had never indented for the transportation of the jewellery and diamonds and they had no interest in these assets. The order under section 132(5) of the Act was said to have been passed in a summary manner within the statutory time provided therefor on February 25, 1987, holding the petitioner to be in possession of unexplained cash, jewellery and diamonds, and that they were ordered to be retained. Reference is also made to the statement said to have been given by the petitioner even on February 18, 1987, that he was never the owner of the assets and that he was onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore him, recorded his satisfaction and approved further action. It is in such circumstances the impugned communication challenged in Writ Petition No. 2843 of 1994, came to be issued. On going through the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that sufficient reasons have been recorded by the competent authority and the statutory approval has been obtained from the appropriate authority. Consequently, the general and vague allegation of mala fides and want of sufficient basis for the proposed action under section 148 of the Act has no basis in law. As against the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner for return of the jewellery and the cash and diamonds, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that pending finalisation of the escaped assessment, this court should not interfere in the matter by ordering release of the articles, including the cash. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in J. R. Malhotra v. Additional Sessions Judge, AIR 1976 SC 219 ; [1976] 2 SCR 993, in support of his claim. That was a case wherein under a search warrant issued under section 132 of the Act, the income-tax authorities seized certain documents and money from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the counter-affidavit would go to show that the petitioner was really the mouthpiece of somebodyelse and he has been giving prevaricating statements conflicting with each other at every stage and at times the Department was finding it difficult even to trace him for service of notices. In the light of such facts and circumstances, it would be inappropriate for this court to order the return of the money as well as the jewellery and diamonds to the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter would go to show that at one stage he was denying the ownership of the property himself as is now made before this court and also claiming that he was only a courier carrying things at the behest of his employer. Be that as it may, it becomes necessary to properly identify the owner and if it is to be treated as belonging to the petitioner, he will have to explain the source and pay the tax, if any, due on the same. Issuing a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus at this stage would defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, I am unable to countenance the claim of the petitioner. So far as Writ Petition No. 2843 of 1994 is concerned, for the reasons already recorded, the action initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
