9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and was seized from the hands of the petitioner's friend, was taxed in the hands of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 - writ filled seeking adjustment of cash that was seized from the hands of the petitioner's friend - meanwhile fourth respondent has initiated proceeding under Section 263 - HELD THAT:- The prayer of the petitioner for a Mandamus cannot be countenanced without an application by the petitioner under first proviso to Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, although there could be a corresponding duty on the part of the respondents to appropriate the amount that was seized on 20.06.2020, if an application is made. If the aforesaid seized amount is to be treated as an asset of the petitioner and adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized on 20.06.2020, seven different Assessment Orders came to be passed on 27.03.2022 for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 to 2021-2022. The cash of Rs.99,75,000/- which is said to belong to the petitioner and was seized from the hands of the petitioner's aforesaid friend, was taxed in the hands of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 3. Meanwhile, against the aforesaid Assessment Orders, the fourth respondent has initiated proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.01.2023. The said proceeding is said to be pending. Meanwhile, the Officers enforcing the Prohibition of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, namely the fifth respondent proceeded to pass an order dated 14.02.2023. By the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai BPU, bearing No.R-592/2022 is allowed; and (iii) The Provisional Attachment Order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the I.O. u/s 24(4)(a)(i) of the PBPT Act, is confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.9868 of 2023, which came to be allowed at the time of admission on 30.03.2023, by quashing the said order therein dated 14.02.2023 of the fifth respondent herein (first respondent therein). The case was remitted back to the fifth respondent herein to pass a fresh order after consideration of facts on merits. The learned single Judge of this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2023 also directed the fifth respondent herein to pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961, although there could be a corresponding duty on the part of the respondents to appropriate the amount that was seized on 20.06.2020, if an application is made. If the aforesaid seized amount is to be treated as an asset of the petitioner and adjusted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has to first file an application as is contemplated under the aforesaid provision. 11. Considering the fact that a parallel proceedings is also pending before the fifth respondent under the Prohibition of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9868 of 2023, I direct the petitioner to file appropriate application before the third respondent in accordance with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
