9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of Messrs. Mahavir Prasad Suraj Prasad, Jewellers, Kanpur. At that time, he was carrying a jhola containing a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash and certain jewellery and ornaments. Soon after a party from the income-tax department raided the premises of Messrs. Mahavir Prasad Suraj Prasad. It seized and took into custody the jhola carry ing the cash as well as the ornaments from petitioner No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 15,000 out of the impugned amount of Rs. 20,000 belonged to his wife and the balance to his brother, he was also entitled to its refund because the money was seized by the raiding party from his custody. Learned counsel further urged that the fact of an assessment order under s. 135(2) having been passed against the firm, Mahabir Prasad Suraj Prasad, Kanpur, is irrelevant and could not make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the petitioners. Again, the fact that the assessment order had been challenged by Messrs. Mahavir Prasad Suraj Prasad and the appeal was pending before the Tribunal was, in our opinion, entirely beside the point. Since the finding that may ultimately be recorded in those proceedings would not be binding on the petitioners, it is difficult to accept that the application for refund of money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not make an application would not, in our opinion, debar the first petitioner from applying under sub-s. (11). In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of 6th September 1976, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Notified Authority for deciding the application made by the petitioners under s. 132(11) of the I.T. Act afresh and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
