TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders refund of seized bearer bonds value with interest; petitioner not liable for loss.</h1> <h3>Shanti Sarup Gupta Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax And Others.</h3> The court ordered the Income-tax Department to refund the petitioner the value of seized bearer bonds, amounting to Rs. 1,80,000 from 1991, along with ... Bearer bonds which were seized by the Department have been lost by the Department - Under the law, the said bearer bonds could not have been seized or in any case, had to be accounted for. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the loss - Accordingly, we direct the Department to refund the amount of the bearer bonds, i.e., Rs. 1,80,000 as in the year 1991. The Department will also pay simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from January 1, 1992, till the date of payment. The Department will be free to recover the same from the persons who may be responsible for causing loss. Issues:Petition for the return of seized bearer bonds under Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The petition was filed seeking the return of bearer bonds seized by the Income-tax Department under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The bearer bonds had a face value of Rs. 10,000 each with a maturity value of Rs. 1,80,000 in the year 1991. The Department had seized a total of Rs. 10,40,635, including the mentioned bearer bonds. In response, the Department claimed that the bearer bonds were not seized from the petitioner and cited the destruction of records during an anti-Mandal agitation in September 1990, where all seized records were burnt to ashes.Upon examination of the panchnama and a letter dated May 25, 1990, it was established that the bearer bonds worth Rs. 1,50,000 were indeed seized by the Department. The court noted that the Department had lost the seized bearer bonds and emphasized that under the law, the bonds should have either been returned or accounted for. The petitioner could not be held responsible for the loss of the bearer bonds.As a result, the court directed the Department to refund the amount of the bearer bonds, i.e., Rs. 1,80,000 from the year 1991. Additionally, the Department was ordered to pay simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from January 1, 1992, until the actual date of payment. The Department was granted the authority to recover the refunded amount from the individuals responsible for the loss. Finally, the petition was disposed of, thereby concluding the legal proceedings related to the seized bearer bonds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
