Sanjay Sinha V. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and The Director-General of Income-tax (Investigation), Patna and The Director of Income-tax (Investigation) for Ranchi and The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi and The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and The assessing Officer

WPC/5419/2006

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sanjay Sinha against various respondents including the Union of India and several income tax authorities, concerning the seizure of Rs.71,84,488 from various banks under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought the return of the seized amount, arguing that the authorities failed to initiate the requisite proceedings for assessment within the prescribed time and did not apply the seized money as required under section 132-B of the Act. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the request for refund could not be entertained during the pendency of the related tax appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813524 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M S DEEPAK ROSHAN SR S C RAJESH KUMAR GP V AMIT KUMAR M K SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: M S D V PATHY SHEKHAR SINHA ABHISHEK KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Refund; Search; Seizure
• Section: 132; 246 A; 158-BC(a); 158 BC(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 5419 of 2006 With I.A. Nos.629/2011 and 2981/2012 Sanjay Sinha, son of Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha, having his residence at 'Sushila Niwas', Main Road, Hinood, Ranchi … … … … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat Building, New Delhi 2. The Director-General of Income-tax (Investigation), Patna through the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ranchi having his jurisdiction over the Jharkhand State also and having his office at Central Revenue Building, 1, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Director of Income-tax (Investigation) for Ranchi, presently having hiss office at Central Revenue Building, 1, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 4. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi 6. The assessing Officer, having his office at Central Revenue Building, Patna … … ... … ... ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA ----- For the Petitioner: M/s. D.V. Pathy, Shekhar Sinha, Abhishek Kumar For the Respondents: M/s. Deepak Roshan (Sr. S.C.), Rajesh Kumar (GP- V), Amit Kumar, M.K. SInha ------ 10/Dated: 06th April, 2016 Per D.N. Patel, J. 1) This writ application has been preferred with the following prayers: - “............. commanding the respondent and/or respondents aforesaid to return to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.71,84,488/- seized from various banks by the Income Tax Department purportedly under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following manner:- I. State Bank of India, Ranchi (Encashment from clearing house) Rs.996800/- Rs.996800/- & Rs.797440/- Total Rs.27,90,240/- on 19.1.1998 of Bank Drafts, FDRs etc in the name of Sanjay Sinha issued by AH Deptt. II. Fixed Deposit Receipts, Allahabad Bank Tantisilwai Rs.30,00,000/-. -2- III. Stop payment order on the banks and encashment of the bank balances Rs.12,94,248/-. IV. F.D.Rs. a) 5000X6 = Rs.30,000.00 Sanjay Sinha b) 5000X4 = Rs.20,000.00 Sanket Swaropp c) 5000X3 = Rs.15,000-00 Shanu d) 5000X7 = Rs.35,000.00 Sinhjini. firstly barbecue it has failed to initiate the requisite proceedings for assessment under section 158 BC(a) of the Act within the time prescribed by law, Secondly because it has failed to apply the seized money in the manner as required under Section 132-B of the Act in the assessment required to have been made on the basis of the said multiple searches made in the year 1996; and thirdly, because it has failed to consider and apply the seized money even in the assessment u/s 158 BC(c) of the Act dated 31.1.2000 made in pursuance of another Search conducted after two years from the above mentioned search i.e. in the year 1998, and fourthly, because the amount has also not been allowed in the appeal u/s 246-A of the Act to be applied and adjusted against the tax liability of Rs.22,16,65,935/- determined under the assessment order passed on 31.1.2000.” 2) It appears that a search was carried out on 19th January, 1998 and a sizable amount by way of bank draft and Fixed Deposit Receipts were seized during the process of search, details whereof have been given in the aforesaid paragraph. Thereafter, assessment was made, against which appeals being Tax Appeal No.06/2015 and Tax Appeal No.06/2015 have been preferred. During pendency of these two appeals, the prayer of this petitioner for refund of the aforesaid amount cannot be allowed by this Court. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed at this stage. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to raise demand of refund of the aforesaid amount after the Tax Appeal No.06/2015 and Tax Appeal No.07 of 2015 are finally disposed of by this Court. 3) Both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications, being Nos.629/2011 and 2981/2012 are also disposed of in view of the final order passed in the writ petition. (D. N. Patel, J) Manoj/ (Amitav K. Gupta, J) "