9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deposited on February 10, 1988, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in the Canara Bank, Danapur Cantonment Branch, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the bank"). and obtained a receipt for the deposit in his own name giving his address as Budha Colony, Patna. The amount was deposited for a period of six months. (ii) In pursuance of an authorisation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), issued by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Patna, on May 16, 1988, the Assistant Director of Inspection, directed the branch manager of the bank (vide annexure 5) to debit the fixed deposit account of the petitioner and prepare a draft for the balance amount along with interest payable in P. D. Account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner by an order dated February 3, 1989. (iv) Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court under section 41 of the Arbitration Act and an ex parte order was passed on January 17, 1990, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, to make over payment of Rs. 4,36,874 to the Registrar of the High Court. The Commissioner appeared and, on February 8, 1990, the aforesaid interim order was vacated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition on March 17, 1990, before this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the demand notices issued to him in pursuance of the order of assessment and the order imposing penalty be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to return the mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of facts. Without such investigation, it cannot be held that there was no valid service and the assessment proceedings against the petitioner were without jurisdiction. As the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, the appellate authority will decide that question in the light of the materials that would be placed on record and 1, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf. The order of assessment and the order imposing penalty passed against the petitioner cannot be quashed in these proceedings as prayed for. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent authorities were not justified in directing the bank to prepare a draft in the name of the Commissioner of Income-tax by converting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of maturity of the deposit, the petitioner would have known from the bank officials about the commencement of proceedings against him. The petitioner has not disclosed that he visited the bank any time after February 10, 1988, even though he had deposited the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 in the bank for a period of six months only. He did not appear before the respondent authorities at Patna but proceedings were instituted in the Calcutta High Court by the partners of the petitioner, as alleged by him, for recovering the amount seized by the respondent authorities. It was only after the ex parte order passed in those proceedings was vacated that the petitioner chose to file this petition. In view of this conduct of the petitioner and in view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
