9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) and further proceedings pursuant to the impugned requisition. Additionally, the petitioner also impugns a notice dated 08.10.2018 issued under Section 153A of the Act and notice dated 05.11.2018 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act in respect of the assessment years (AY) 2011-12 to 2016-17. 2. The petitioner had not impugned the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act in the petition as initially filed as the said notice was issued after the present petition was filed. 3. The petitioner contends that there was possibly no reason to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment and therefore the impugned requisition was issued without authority of law. FACTUAL CONTEXT 4. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner by CBI on 20.10.2012 in connection with R.C. No.AC-I/2012A/0014. The said case was registered in connection with an alleged bribe offered to General V.K. Singh in connection with procurement of High Mobility Vehicles for the defence forces. The concerned authority believed that the petitioner was also involved in the said matter. 5. During the search proceedings, the currency amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Income Tax Authority (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) issued warrant of authorization under Section 132A (1) (c) of the Act to the Superintendent of Police, CBI for handing over the seized documents and cash to the Requisitioning Officer. 13. The learned Special Judge, CBI passed an order dated 01.10.2016 rejecting the petitioner's request for release of the seized funds on the ground that the impugned requisition had been issued under Section 132A of the Act by the Income Tax Department. 14. It is stated that CBI handed over the seized cash of Rs. 98,00,000/- to the Requisitioning Officer on 15.12.2016. 15. On 11.07.2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of petitioner's income for the AY 2013-14. However, thereafter, Income Tax Department took a corrective course and stated that perusal of the details indicated that the impugned requisition had been executed on 15.12.2016 and therefore, the petitioner's assessment was required to be completed under Section 153A of the Act and not under Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were dropped by an order dated 08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Healthline Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vinay Sharma but the same were returned unserved. It was reported that Mr. Vinay Sharma had expired on 10.03.2016. 20. Additionally, the Income Tax Department also examined the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the previous years and found that the petitioner's return of income during the AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 were also negligible (Rs. 15,843/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 29,103/- for AY 2011-12) and did not reconcile with his possession of huge amount of cash. 21. It is after conducting the investigation that the concerned Income Tax Officer (ITO) drew up a note seeking warrant of authorization under Section 132A (1) (c) of the Act. The said note is reproduced below: "CBI case No. RC ACI 2012 A 0014 against Lt. Gen (Retd.) Tejinder Singh In this case information was received from the Superintendent Of Police CBI, AC-1. New Delhi vide File No.06 dated 02.01.2013 where it was communicated that "A Criminal Case No. RC AC1 2012 A 0014 has been registered on 19.10.2012 u/s 12 of PC Act 1988 against Lt. Gen (Reld.) Tejinder Singh on the allegation of offering a bribe of Rs.14 crores to Genl. V.K. Singh, The then COAS, to clear the file for pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was a fit case for issuance of warrants of authorization under Section 132A (1) (c) of the Act. The impugned requisition was issued thereafter. It is apparent from the above that there has been some delay in issuance of the impugned requisition, however, the Income Tax Department has explained that the said delay was on account of investigations conducted by it. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that the impugned requisition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. 23. The second question to be examined is whether the impugned requisition is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no reason to believe that the cash seized could not be disclosed by the petitioner. It is relevant to refer to Section 132A of the Act. The same is set out below: "Powers to requisition books of account, etc. 132A. (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. (2) On a requisition being made under sub-section (1), the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody. (3) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 by the requisitioning officer from the custody of the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section and as if for the words "the authorised officer" occurring in any of the aforesaid sub-sections (4A) to (14), the words "the requisitioning officer" were substituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Registration No. DL3CAY4326. The petitioner claimed that the said cash could not be deposited in his bank accounts as he was travelling out of India from 15.10.2012 to 17.10.2012. The petitioner also claimed that subsequently the said transaction was cancelled and the amount was refunded to the proposed buyer (Mr. Vinay Sharma) by RTGS. Additionally, the petitioner stated that the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been received as an advance for sale of one of the shops belonging to M/s Global Influence which was located at 103 Central Aarcade, Gurgaon. The petitioner claimed that he had received cash on 14.10.2012. The said cash also could not be deposited in the bank account as the petitioner was travelling from 15.10.2012 to 17.10.2012. The petitioner claimed that the cash was received from one Mr. Dhanraj on 14.10.2012. However, Mr. Dhanraj had unfortunately expired on 01.01.2013 before the transaction could be completed. The petitioner claimed that the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was declared in his return of income for the AY 2013-14 and tax on which was duly deposited. 29. The Income Tax Department was not convinced by the petitioner's explanation and in our view rightly so. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation. Although, the petitioner had produced some documents regarding receipt of cash of Rs. 18,50,000/- from one Mr. Vinay Sharma (who has since expired) towards the purported total sale consideration of Rs. 26,50,000/- of Porche car; however, there are many gaps that remain unexplained, for instance, why the cash received was not deposited in the bank account or why the same was not received through banking channels. Admittedly, the possession of the car was not handed over to the prospective purchaser as, according to the petitioner, he had not paid the balance consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Thus, according to the petitioner, he continued to hold cash against a transaction, which never fructified. There is no material on record to show the creditworthiness of Mr. Vinay Sharma or any explanation why he made payments in cash. Given the nature of explanation, we find no infirmity with the decision of the Income Tax Authorities in not accepting the same. 33. In view of the above, the petitioner's contention that the Income Tax Authorities had no reason to believe that the cash as seized was an undisclosed asset, is rejected. We find no infirmity with the decision of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
