https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30905 SC allowed the appeal. The Court held that the lower authorities erred in not considering the appellant's voluntary offer to sell seized securities under s.220(2-A); the Department's plea that tax liability was not ascertainable did not preclude exercising discretion to sell the securities and realize dues. However, the demand draft could not be encashed because it was in a company's name, the presumption of ownership is rebuttable, and no request for encashment was made by the appellant. The matter was remitted/decided in favour of the appellant on those grounds. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30905 SC allowed the appeal. The Court held that the lower authorities erred in not considering the appellant's voluntary offer to sell seized securities under s.220(2-A); the Department's plea that tax liability was not ascertainable did not preclude exercising discretion to sell the securities and realize dues. However, the demand draft could not be encashed because it was in a company's name, the presumption of ownership is rebuttable, and no request for encashment was made by the appellant. The matter was remitted/decided in favour of the appellant on those grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30905