MOHAMMED NIAZ V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INV)

WP(C)/24783/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Mohammed Niaz, the petitioner, who approached the Kerala High Court seeking the release of an excess amount of Rs.1,51,29,850/- retained by the Income Tax Department following a search and seizure operation. The petitioner argued that the seized amount was excessive compared to the potential tax liability assessed by the department. The Income Tax Department contended that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the source of the seized money, which was allegedly intended for a land sale. The court's decision focused on the procedural aspect, directing the department to expedite the assessment process without making a determination on the petitioner's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755505 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K ANAND
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Income Tax; Medical treatment; Search and seizure; Excess Amount Refund
• Section: 147; 131; 132(4)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 24783 of 2016 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MOHAMMED NIAZ, ZEREENE, EDAPPALLY P.O., RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEAR AL AMEEN SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 24. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT : ------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INV), 3RD FLOOR, ARYA BHANGI PINNACLE BUILDING, SA ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI. PIN-682 020 BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR. COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 24783 of 2016 (W) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT (COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER AND LIST OF SEIZED ITEMS) DATED 28/01/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 131 A DATED 08/02/2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT DATED 9/2/2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER OATH UNDER SECTION 132(4) DATED 15/02/2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT HE IS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT DATED 17/12/2015, 04/02/2016, 25/05/2016, 02/06/2016 & 25/06/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. --------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 24783 of 2016 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to release an excess amount of Rs.1,51,29,850/- retained by the respondent for consequential reliefs. The petitioner submits that a search was conducted by the Income Tax Department in the room booked in the name of the petitioner at Mariott Hotel, Edappally and Rs.1.89 crores were seized. The Income Tax Department had taken steps for finalizing the assessment. According to the petitioner, if at all there is a liability to pay interest and penalty, it would only come to Rs.37,70,150/- and therefore excess amount has to be refunded. According to the petitioner, he is suffering from severe disease and is hospitalized. He is badly in requirement of funds for his treatment and therefore he has approached this Court. 2. A statement is filed by the Standing Counsel inter alia stating that the assessee had accepted the ownership of Rs.1.89 crores which was seized by the Department. According to him, the money was for the purpose of a proposed land sale agreement. According to the Department, W.P (C) No. 24783 of 2016 2 the assessee's explanation was not found to be satisfactory and the Department is not convinced about the source of money. It is further submitted that the proceedings against the assessee cannot be finalized at this stage. The case has to be centralized to the Central Circle, Kochi for assessment. Further, the Assessing Officer has to initiate assessment under Section 147 against Shri. Mohammed Niaz and Shri. Mahmood K.U. and they had not filed any return of income until 30.03.2016. It is stated that the assessee will have to wait until the completion of the assessment proceedings and to finalize the same. Hence, according to the Department, petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid submission of the respondent, I do not think that a time bound direction can be issued in this matter, nor can this Court decide on the entitlement of the petitioner for the amount as claimed. Suffice it to say that the only direction that can be issued is to the respondent to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, this writ petition is closed. A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE DMR/- "