TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 2011-12 in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 112 F as well as the Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 after summoning the records. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to release the Cash of Rs.7,15,000/- either to Petitioner no.1 or to the petitioner no.2, since the same belongs to Petitioner no.1 and was being carried for depositing in the HDFC Bank at Varanasi was illegally seized. (c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Prohibition/Mandamus prohibiting/directing the oppoiste party no. 2 from assessing the petitioner U/s153A for the A.Y.2006-07 to 2011-12 as well as for the A.Y. 2012-13 and not to impose tax and realize the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 142(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 were also issued to the petitioner no.2. Being aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after getting the Contract, the petitioner no. 2 - Sri Sanjai Agarwal was staying in the tourist bungalow at Gopiganj, Bhadohi. As he was authorized to collect the money from the Toll Plaza, he collected the money from the Toll Plaza for depositing the same in the HDFC Bank, which is the Principal Banker of the petitioner no.1. He was carrying the cash with 'carrying certificate' of the company. He submits that the cash collection was as under: Date Shift Time (hrs) Shift ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been released till date inspite of the fact that on 13.03.2013, the petitioner no. 2 has given details of the amount to the assessing authority and requested to drop the proceedings initiated under section 153-A of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 to assessment year 2011-12 in view of Rule 112-F of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as well as Circular No.10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation (1997) 224 ITR 14 (SC), where the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has observed that: "Mere unexplained possession of the amount, without anything more, could hardly be said to constitute information which could be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for Lal Nagar Toll Plaza situated in District Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi. The total amount of Rs.8,13,439/- was collected during three shifts on 10.01.2012 plus one shift (ending on 08.00 am) on 11.01.2012. The explanation given by the petitioner no.2 was not found satisfactory. Lastly, he justified the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the cash was seized from the possession of the petitioner no.2 by the police who referred the matter to the Income Tax Department and after necessary approval, proceedings under section 132-A of the Act were initiated. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the amount should be released along with interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y were 76 and on the date of seizure, the same were Rs.115/-. The explanation of the petitioner is that note of smaller denomination were held at the toll plaza since there is a shortage of small denomination. Further, it appears that it is the first week of the petitioner and in the absence of experience, small denomination currency was held up at the toll plaza. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation given by the petitioner prima-facie appears to be reasonable. The amount belongs to the company i.e. the petitioner no. 1 and certainly not to the petitioner no. 2, who is merely an employee of the company. The explanation, if any, will have to be sought from the petitioner-company. So, there is no occasion to start th....