SYED ASIF B M V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/50249/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Syed Asif B.M. against the Income Tax Officer and the Deputy Director of Income Tax, seeking the release of Rs.20,00,000 that was seized by the police and subsequently handed over to the Income Tax Authorities. The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to release the seized amount within the stipulated time under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, despite multiple requests and explanations provided. The respondents contended that the release of the amount was contingent upon the filing of tax returns by the petitioner for the relevant assessment year and cited inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements regarding the source of the seized money.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755020 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ARAVINDA P; DILRAJ SEQUEIRA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Seizure of cash; Writ petition; Release of Seized Amount
• Section: 132A; 132B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50249/2018 (T – IT) BETWEEN: SYED ASIF B.M., S/O LATE B.N.MUNAWAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A NO.03, RAHIMUNNISA MANZIL MANGAMMAN PALYA MAIN ROAD 1ST A CROSS, S.NAZEER SAB LAYOUT BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARAVINDA KAMATH P., ADV. SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3) (4), KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) (OSD) KARNATAKA UNIT 2 (3), QUEENS ROAD ANNEXE BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-1 TO RELEASE THE SUM OF RUPEES TWENTY LAKHS ONLY [RS.20,00,000] WHICH WAS SEIZED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 2 - O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to release the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only] which was seized by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is an individual and an income tax assessee. It transpires that on 01.05.2018, cash of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only] was seized by the police pertaining to Mico layout police station while it was being carried by the petitioner along with his relative Mr. Zemeer.B.N in his car and the same was handed over to the Income Tax Authorities by the police. 3. The petitioner was summoned by the Income Tax Authorities and it appears that the explanation has been given by the petitioner for having carried the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only]. - 3 - The petitioner has made the application/representation dated 14.08.2018 for release of the said amount but in vain. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short] would submit that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.1 to take a decision in the matter in terms of the First Proviso to Section 132B and to release the amount within a period of 120 days from the date on which the last date of requisition under Section 132A was executed. However, no action has been taken by the respondents despite several requests made pursuant to the representation dated 14.09.2018 at Annexure-D to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that unless the returns are filed by the petitioner relating to the assessment year in question, no request made by the petitioner would be considered - 4 - in view of the inconsistent statements made by the petitioner inasmuch as carrying the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only]. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that on the request made under Section 132A of the Act, the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only] has been held up with the respondent No.1. 7. In such circumstances, it is incumbent on the respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with the proviso to Section 132B of the Act but the same having not been done, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to take a decision in terms of the Section 132B and the proviso thereof on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.09.2018 at Annexure-D in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of four - 5 - weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE NC. "