Inder International V. Deputy Director, Income Tax (Inv.)-2, Ludhiana

CWP/22521/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Inder International, the petitioner, who approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash a letter dated 14th September 2016 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and to direct the release of cash in their custody. The cash, amounting to \'63.30 lacs, was seized by the DRI under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was subsequently transferred to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner sought a refund of this amount. The court had previously directed the Income Tax Department to finalize the assessment proceedings by 30.06.2017, which they did, resulting in a liability less than the seized amount, thus entitling the petitioner to a refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794126 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH SETHI; ARUN BIRIWAL; TSHAR GERA; VARINDER KAUR WARRAICH; SATISH AGGARWALA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Certiorari; Certiorari; DRI; Income Tax; Refund; Seized cash
• Section: 132A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22521 of 2016 Decided on : 11.07.2017 M/s Inder International . . . Petitioner Versus Deputy Director, Income Tax (Inv.)-2, Ludhiana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate, Mr. Tshar Gera, Advocate & Ms. Varinder Kaur Warraich, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for DRI. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of letter dated 14th September, 2016 (Annexure P-16), issued by the DRI. A further prayer for direction to the respondents to release the cash lying in their custody has also been made. 2. In view of the orders dated 23.05.2017, passed by this Court in CM No. 6516 of 2017, whereby, the assessing officer was to complete the assessment proceedings by 30.06.2017, it is considered that it would not be essential to delve into detail factual matrix involved herein. It may be suffice to notice that the amount in dispute i.e. ` 63.30 lacs, which was ceased by the DRI was requisitioned under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and was remitted to the Income Tax Department. The Jawala Ram 2017.07.27 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 22521 of 2016 - 2 - petitioner has claimed refund of the same in the present petition. 3. As noticed earlier, on 23.05.2017, this Court in CM No. 6516- CWP of 2017, had directed the Income Tax Department to finalise the assessment proceedings on or before 30.06.2017. Now, it has been brought to our notice that the Assessment Order has since been passed and on that basis, the petitioner is entitled for certain refund, as the liability assessed in the assessment proceedings is less than the amount, which was requisitioned by the Income Tax Department under Section 132A of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the excess amount i.e. beyond the liability created by the assessment order shall be cleared within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for liberty to challenge the assessment order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority, in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the excess amount beyond the liability created by the assessment order, in accordance with law. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order, wherein, it can raise all the pleas available to it or involved in the present writ petition before the appellate authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) July 11, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.07.27 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh "