9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Counsel has stated, on instructions, that the Revocation Order dated 17th October, 2012 (wrongly recorded as 17th October, 2022 in the said order), was duly served on the Manager, Union Bank of India. The authenticity of the aforesaid Revocation Order dated 17th October, 2012, as issued by the Income Tax Department thereby revoking the Restraint Order on the locker No. 211 maintained with Union Bank of India, 14-15, F-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 in the name of Sh. Pradeep Garg and Smt. Meenu Garg, i.e., the petitioners herein, has already been confirmed by the Income Tax Department. Considering the aforesaid, there is no reason or ground for continuation of the restraint over the said locker and not allowing the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the locker is still being kept under restraint by the respondent-bank. 4. It is submitted that a request was made by the petitioners in this regard. However, despite the same, the request of the petitioners, has not been acceded to. Thus, the present petition came to be filed. 5. None appeared for the respondent-bank on the first call. None appears for the respondent-bank even at the pass over stage. It is noted that none had appeared for the respondent-bank even on the last date of hearing. Accordingly, the present matter has been taken up and has been heard. 6. Perusal of the record shows that by its reply, the respondent-bank had stated as under:- xxx xxx xxx 3. That the petitioners have committed acts of perjury by stating before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 allegedly issued by the office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.). That the petitioners could not even provide any documentary proof that the petitioners have provided the said alleged revocation order/letter dated 17.10.2012 between 2012 and 2020. xxx xxx xxx 7. Perusal of the aforesaid stand on behalf of respondent/Union Bank of India reveals that it was the objection of the bank that the petitioners had never shown or provided the official/original Revocation Order of the Income Tax Department. Thus, the respondent-bank could not verify the authenticity of the Revocation Order dated 17th October, 2012, which had been allegedly issued by the Office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv). 8. This Court notes that by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. 10. This Court also notes that the Revocation Order dated 17th October, 2012, as provided by learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department on 17th October, 2022, was taken on record. The Revocation order dated 17th October, 2012, as issued by the Income Tax Department, reads as under:- Office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit I (2), Room No. 276, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. F. No. ADIT (lnv.)/ Unit-1(2)/2012-13/ Date: 17.10.2012 REVOCATION ORDER Restraint Order u/s 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 24.08.2012 in the case of Locker No 211, Union Bank of India, 14-15, F Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Pradeep Garg and Smt Meenu Garg. The same are here by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
