9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the title over the assets seized from 2nd petitioner herien viz., whether it belongs to 1st or 2nd petitioner. Income Tax Department having already proceeded to find that the money seized belongs to the 2nd petitioner and having treated the same as income in the hands of the 2nd petitioner and orders of assessment having been made against the 2nd petitioner which is also the subject matter of challenge, it appears that examining the validity of the seizure would necessarily lead one to the question as to title of the assets seized from the 2nd petitioner which would think may not be appropriate in the light of the subsequent development viz., order of assessment in the name of the 2nd petitioner and the challenge to it by way of appeal inasmuch as there is no challenge to the order of assessment which is before this court and thus yet another reason which prompts me to think that it may not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as question of title over the assets/monies is essentially a question of fact which ought to be decided on the basis of the evidence which is to be let in and appreciation of such exercise is beyond the realm of jurisdiction under Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standard. c) The School holds an account with the Indian Bank Poovarchathram, Tenkasi District where school fees, coaching fees and tuition fees collected are deposited and utilised for the running of the School. The fees collected are audited periodically and Income Tax returns filed claiming exemption as a Charitable Institution in terms of the Act. d) The Election Commission of India issued a Standard Operating Procedure Order / Instructions on 29.05.2015, containing procedure to be followed by the flying squad to guard against excessive campaign expenses, distribution of items of bribes in cash or in kind, movement of illegal arms, ammunition, liquor or anti-social elements etc., during election process. e) The Election Commission of India issued a notification dated 10.03.2019 for conducting Parliamentary Election on 18.04.2019 in the State of Tamilnadu. f) The Managing Trustee viz., Mr.Anthony Xavier who is a priest, was proceeding to Indian Bank for depositing the school fees and coaching fees collected by the School, when he was intercepted by the State Surveillance Team/ Flying squad. On finding that the 2nd petitioner was in possession of Rs.68,14,000/-, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary for teaching and non-teaching staffs and had to borrow from financial institutions monies against interest. j) The 1st petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10659 of 2020 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the cash amount seized from the 2nd petitioner on 12.03.2019 with reasonable interest. The above writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 14.12.2020 with a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representation of the 1st petitioner dated 18.03.2019 requesting release of the seized cash amounting to a sum of Rs.68,14,000/- which was seized from the 2nd petitioner on 12.03.2019 after recording the following: 10.... According to them, the Writ Petition has been prematurely filed even without waiting for the outcome of the investigation. Even though they have raised several contentions in the counter affidavit, the primary ground raised by the Income Tax Department in their counter affidavit is that without completion of investigation as to whether the seized cash belongs to the Managing Trustee of the petitioner / Trust in his individual capacity or whether it belongs to the School run by the petitioner, as cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not empower the authorities therein to transfer the assets / money seized to the Income Tax Department on the dictates of the Income Tax authorities under Section 132A of the Act. b. The seizure of cash by the 4th respondent vide memo dated 12.03.2019 being illegal and contrary to the Standard Operating Procedure, any proceeding by the Income Tax authorities requisitioning the assets/ money seized by the 4th Respondent under the Standard Operating Procedures is illegal and in excess of its authority under Section 132 A of the Act by the 3rd Respondent. c. That to invoke 132 A (1)(c) of the Act, the following conditions must be cumulatively satisfied: i) That the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) in consequence of information in his possession must have reason to believe , that any assets either wholly or partly which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of Act, by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force. The above condition does not exist in the circumstances of the case. ii) The Standard Operating Procedure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt should not shut its door in noticing subsequent events . All laws and procedures including functioning of courts are all in aid to confer justice who knock its door. The court should interpret the law not in derogation of justice but in its aid. Bringing on record subsequent event, which is relevant, should, therefore, be permitted to be brought on record to render justice to a party. But the court in doing so should be cautious not to permit it in a routine manner. It should refuse the prayer where party is doing so to delay the proceedings and to harass the other party or doing so for any other ulterior motive. The court should also examine whether the alleged subsequent event has any material bearing on issues involved or would materially affect the result of the suit. (emphasis supplied) ii) Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B.Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner which is also the subject matter of challenge, it appears that examining the validity of the seizure would necessarily lead one to the question as to title of the assets seized from the 2nd petitioner which I would think may not be appropriate in the light of the subsequent development viz., order of assessment in the name of the 2nd petitioner and the challenge to it by way of appeal inasmuch as there is no challenge to the order of assessment which is before this court and thus yet another reason which prompts me to think that it may not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as question of title over the assets/monies is essentially a question of fact which ought to be decided on the basis of the evidence which is to be let in and appreciation of such exercise is beyond the realm of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition cannot be entertained. However, it would be open to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy against the impugned proceeding dated 01.02.2021 rejecting the petitioners claim for return of the assets (money) seized. It would be open to the petitioners to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
