TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr.B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that cash amount of Rs.32,64,560/- was found to be in possession of the petitioner which was finally recovered by the Police Sub- Inspector, Dariapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, who informed the Income Tax Authority and thereafter when the petitioner failed to satisfy the Income Tax authority with respect to the source of such a huge amount of cash, after issuing valid authorisation under section 132A of the IT Act, amount of Rs.32,64,560/- is requisitioned. 5.02 At the outset, it is required to be noted that initially the petitioner tried to explain the source of the aforesaid amount by submitting that the same was given by his father and family members to start new business by selling jeweleries, however, the petitioner failed to prove the same and subsequently agreed that it is an undisclosed income which may be added in his income for A.Y. 2014-15. 5.03 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the petitioner failed to disclose the source of the aforesaid huge amount of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e concerned AO and the concerned AO to pass appropriate order on the application submitted by the petitioner considering proviso to section 132B of the Act. It is, however, clarified that in any case, appropriate order on the application submitted by the petitioner be passed within a period of 12 weeks from today. With this present petition is disposed of so far as prayer in terms of para 7(b) is concerned and the present petition is dismissed so far as prayer in terms of para 7(a) i.e. challenge to the authorisation under section 132A of the IT Act, is concerned." From the above order of the Court, it emerges that the petitioner's challenge to the authorization under section 132A of the Act came to be rejected by this Court. With respect to the request of the petitioner for release of the cash so seized, the Court required the Income Tax Authorities to pass appropriate order on the application already filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed. 3. Pursuant to such order, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 16.12.2013 which is impugned in this petition. 4. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the authorization under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment of A.Y.2014-15. 5. In this case penalty proceeding may also be initiated u/s 271AAB wherein penalty could be levied not less than thirty percent and not more than 90 per cent of the undisclosed income and u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which is hundred to three hundred percent of tax. Therefore, the seized amount may not be enough to discharge the liability determined/determinable in your case. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case release of seized assets is not permissible as per law in this case. Your application u/s 132B (First Proviso) is thus hereby rejected." 6. We see no reason to interfere with the said order. Firstly, insofar as the validity of the authorization under section 132A is concerned, the same was already tested previously by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.15274 of 2013 when this Court, as noted above, did not entertain any such challenge. We, therefore, cannot reopen such an issue. The sole question that survives for our consideration is regarding the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner refusing even the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the cash in terms of section 132B of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey so applied. (iii) The assets other than money may also be applied for the discharge of any such liability referred to in clause (I) as remains undischarged and for this purpose such assets shall be deemed to be under distraint as if such distraint was effect by the Assessing Officer, or as the case may be, the Tax Recovery Officer under authorisation from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (5) of section 226 and the Assessing Officer or as the case may be, the Tax Recovery Officer may recover the amount of such liabilities by the sale of such assets as such sale shall be effected in the manner laid down in the Third Schedule." 7. From the record it emerges that the petitioner has been taking contradictory stand regarding the source of the amount. Before the police authorities, he had stated that the amount was out of his personal savings and income from brokerage of diamonds. Later on, before the Department, he changed his version and stated that the amount was received from his father and other relatives to enable him to set up his business. Such amounts, his relatives had raised by selling their jeweleries and ornaments. 8. It was on account of s....