2002 (1) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Court orders examination of fixed deposit ownership, directs prompt refund & payment to joint depositors

The court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to examine the genuineness of a fixed deposit belonging to joint depositors. If found payable, ... Retention of Seized Assets - Whether the court was justified in issuing direction to respondent No. 5 to examine and scrutinise the genuineness of the FDR seized during search and seizure, alleged to be belonging to the petitioners? -we are satisfied that the direction needs to be issued to respondent No. 5 to examine and scrutinise the genuineness of the FDR, alleged to be belonging to the petitioners. If respondent No. 5 is satisfied that the petitioners are the persons holding FDR and entitled to the said amount, then respondent No. 5 is directed to pass suitable order, pending appeal with respect to the said FDR if the same is found to be payable to the petitioners and shall direct release of the amount of the FDR to respondent No. 4-bank for being paid to the petitioners. All this process must be completed by respondent No. 5 within eight weeks from today. Issues:1. Premature withdrawal of fixed deposit by joint depositors from a bank.2. Dispute arising due to income-tax authorities seizing the fixed deposit amount.3. Failure of the bank to pay the fixed deposit proceeds to the depositors.4. Legal recourse sought by the depositors through a petition to demand their fixed deposit proceeds.Analysis:1. The petitioners jointly deposited a sum in fixed deposit with the respondent bank, which matured and was renewed for a period. When they approached the bank for premature withdrawal, the bank refused, citing seizure of the amount by income-tax authorities. The bank confirmed the value of the fixed deposit but failed to release the proceeds to the petitioners.2. During income-tax search and seizure operations, fixed deposit receipts were seized, and the bank was asked to prove their genuineness during assessment proceedings. The bank claimed to have submitted all details to the Assessing Officer, but the Income-tax Department disputed this, leading to the fixed deposit being assessed as the bank's income. An appeal challenging this assessment was pending.3. Due to the pending appeal, the court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the Assessing Officer's order. Instead, it directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to examine the genuineness of the fixed deposit belonging to the petitioners. If found payable, the amount was to be released to the bank for payment to the petitioners within a specified timeline.4. The court ordered the Income-tax Department to refund the amount to the bank promptly, and the bank was directed to pay the petitioners with accrued interest within a week of receiving the refunded amount. The payment to the petitioners was made subject to the outcome of the petition, ensuring a resolution to the dispute over the fixed deposit proceeds.This comprehensive analysis outlines the legal issues, the sequence of events leading to the dispute, the actions taken by the parties involved, and the court's directions to resolve the matter effectively.