RAJNISH BHATIA AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER

CWP/5621/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Rajnish Bhatia and others, who filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and another respondent, seeking a writ of Mandamus for the issuance of a refund of \' 11,04,046 along with interest. The background of the case includes a search and seizure operation by the Central Excise Department in 1999, where cash and goods were seized. The Income Tax Department later treated the seized amount as undisclosed income for the block period from 1.4.1989 to 30.3.2000, leading to legal proceedings. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequent appeals resulted in the deletion of the addition of the seized amount as income. However, the petitioners' application for a refund of the seized amount was not addressed, leading to the present writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722809 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: AVNEESH JHINGAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Block period; Income Tax; Mandamus; Refund; Seizure; Tribunal; Undisclosed income
• Section: 158BC; 132A; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"CWP No. 5621 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5621 of 2016 Date of Decision: 22.3.2016 Rajnish Bhatia and others ....Petitioners. Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents. 1. Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG. PRESENT: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue refund of ` 11,04,046/- along with interest. 2. On 6.10.1999, the residence as well as business premises of the petitioners were searched by the Central Excise Department and the goods and cash amounting to ` 10,25,000/- were seized. The Excise Department vide letter dated 16.3.2000 informed the Income Tax Department regarding the seizure of the aforesaid cash amount who initiated proceedings under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). A notice dated 25.4.2001 under Section 158BC of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.04.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5621 of 2016 -2- Act was issued. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.3.2001 (Annexure P-1) treated the said income from undisclosed sources for the block period of 1.4.1989 to 30.3.2000 and made additions of ` 10,25,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 28.5.2003 (Annexure P-2) deleted the said addition. Against the order, Annexure P-2, the department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The assessee also filed cross objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.8.2006 allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objections of the assessee. The assessee took the matter before this Court by filing ITA No. 593 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for re-adjudication and fresh decision in accordance with law. However, during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal after remand from this Court, Shri Brij Mohan Bhatia had expired on 8.12.2011 as per death certificate dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-4). The Tribunal vide order dated 27.8.2015 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the appeal of the department as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee. The petitioners vide application dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-6) applied for refund along with interest, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioners sent reminders dated 9.2.2016 and 17.2.2016 (Annexure P-7 Colly) to respondent No.2, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioners have moved an application dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-6) followed by reminders dated GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.04.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5621 of 2016 -3- 9.2.2016 and 17.2.2016 (Annexure P-7 Colly) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the application dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P- 6) followed by reminders dated 9.2.2016 and 17.2.2016 (Annexure P-7 Colly), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioners are entitled to the amount, the same be paid to them by respondent No.2 within next one month, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 22, 2016 (RAJ RAHUL GARG) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.04.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh "