9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huge amount in the denomination of ₹ 20,000 each way back in the year 1996? - HELD THAT:- The pleadings of the petitioners are blown away from the statement of their own mother and guardian-Kavita Oberoi wife of deceased Shanti Nath recorded on 6.1.1997 vide Annexure R-2/1 before the Income Tax Authorities. In her statement, she clearly stated that neither she nor her deceased husband had any bank account/locker in any bank in India. She further stated that she had 3 children and her husband was employed as a Munshi with Raj Pal Anand getting ₹ 600/- to ₹ 700/- per month. She also stated that they were living hand to mouth. After the death of her husband, she had rental income of ₹ 300/- per month and was sustaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also not the case of the petitioners that the previous years' ITRs. of the father/mother of the petitioners showing the requisite income for making such FDRs. have not been taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority has rightly acted by assessing and encashing the said FDRs. The petitioners have no locus standi to claim the said FDRs. as they were made as a 'benami transaction'. - CWP No. 13796 of 1997 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-4-2021 - Augustine George Masih And Ashok Kumar Verma , JJ. For the Appellant : Jagdish Manchanda , Advocate For the Respondents : Yogesh Putney , Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The petitioners-Deepika Oberoi and Hina Oberoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Parkash Anand. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, who have encashed the aforesaid FDRs, through this petition in the year 1997. 3. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed their written statements. In the written statements, the case of the respondents have averred that a search and seizure operation was launched by the Income Tax Department on 24.12.1996 in the premises of one Ved Parkash Anand, a businessman of Yamunanagar, Surinder Anand, Smt. Bindoo Anand, Raj Pal Anand (brother of Ved Parkash Anand) and his daughters Smt. Asha Talwar and Smt. Varsha Taneja. A large number of benami assets of the Anand Group were recovered. Smt. Varsha Taneja in her statement stated that the briefcase, which contained the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is contended that many FDRs. belonging to public at large had also been taken away by the respondents-Income Tax Department which is also clear from a letter dated 25.03.1997 written by respondent-Bank. It is vehemently argued that there is no sanction of authority of the respondents-Income Tax Department to encash the said 4 FDRs. The petitioners are not family members or partners of Ved Parkash Anand except that their father was an employee of him. It is further contended that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act which authorizes the Income Tax Department to encash FDRs. belonging to persons other than those whose premises were searched. It is further contended that respondent-bank was only a trustee of FDRs. It had no power/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20,000 each in the year 1996 in the name of the petitioners. Learned Senior Standing Counsel thus contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book. 7. The only moot question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether father/mother of the petitioners were having any source of income for creating 4 FDRs. of huge amount in the denomination of ₹ 20,000 each way back in the year 1996? 8. The pleadings of the petitioners are blown away from the statement of their own mother and guardian-Kavita Oberoi wife of deceased Shanti Nath recorded on 6.1.1997 vide Annexure R-2/1 before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on record, the story put forward by the petitioners seems to be totally concocted and the result of an after-thought. There is nothing on record to show that either the mother or father of the minor petitioners was having any other source of income to invest such huge amount for making 4 FDRs. in the denomination of ₹ 20,000 each made way back in the year 1996. The source of money from the father/mother of the petitioners is not at all traceable since there is no cogent material such as Income Tax Returns on the record of the present case either filed by their father/mother or their relatives to show that the petitioners were having any other known sources of income so that it appears to be convincing and containing grain of tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
