Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (3) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 15, 1981. The petitioner came forward with an estimate of his income for the assessment year 1982-83. The petitioner estimated his income for the purposes of paying advance tax at Rs. 16,97,000 on which, according to him, the advance tax payable was Rs. 10,97,140 request was made to the Department that the said advance tax liability of Rs. 10,97,140 may be treated as fully paid and adjusted by appropriating an equal amount from out of the cash and gold already in the possession of the Department in respect of which there were proceedings under section 132 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 132(5) of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the petitioner, since the petitioner had committed an offence under the Gold (Control) Act and the Central Excise Authorities had intimated that they would be taking action against the petitioner under the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner was accordingly informed on September 22, 1985 (vide annexure I to the counter-affidavit), that it was not possible to dispose of the primary gold in the possession of the Department as the same may have to be handed over to the Central Excise Department to enable them to take appropriate action under the Gold (Control) Act. On April 14, 1985, the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, wrote to the Income-tax Department that the gold may be made available for taking action under Gold (Control) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Income-tax Act. It has not been disputed that the three bricks of gold which had been seized are primary gold. Under section 8 of the Gold (Control) Act, there is a restriction on the possession of primary gold without following the procedure laid down in the Act. It has not been shown to us that the petitioner could validly hold those bricks of primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act. If that be so, prima facie, the petitioner would be deemed to have contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act and the Gold Control Authorities could take action against him. However, as the primary gold has not been seized by the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, the question that further arises for consideration is whether they could .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . But it was vehemently urged for the petitioner that when once the gold had been retained by the Income-tax Authorities under section 132(5 of the Act, it was incumbent upon them to have adjusted the same for the purposes of clearance of the tax demand against the petitioner. The contention, in our opinion, appears to be not correct inasmuch as section 132B(2) specifically provides that notwithstanding the provisions of section 132B(1), the Income-tax Officer may follow other modes for recovering the outstanding demand. A part from that, since the petitioner remains the owner of the gold, the Income-tax Officer cannot be prevented from handing over the same to the excise authorities. A similar question came up for consideration before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se and liable to confiscation, the Income-tax Authorities cannot be forced to appropriate the tax demand from the sale of the seized primary gold. The Income-tax Authorities are bound to assist the Gold Control Authorities and are also liable to produce the gold before the Gold Control Authorities. The steps taken by the Income-tax Officer to recover the tax from the petitioner by attachment and sale of the house property cannot, therefore, be illegal or unauthorised. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order granted by this court on February 27, 1986, stands discharged. Counsel seeks a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that the case involves any substantial q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates