TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Investigation), Ahmedabad that the police authorities have intercepted one Mr. Jinkal Dineshbhai Virvadiya (Shah) - petitioner herein and found carrying cash of Rs. 32,64,560/- on 1/9/2013 and information was passed to the Department for verification from the Income Tax perspective. Thereafter, receiving information from the Police Inspector, Dariapur Police Station, copy of the Panchnama and statements of the persons recorded by the police were obtained by the Income Tax Department. That thereafter the petitioner could not satisfy the source of Rs. 32,64,560/- and his explanation with respect to cash of Rs. 32,64,560/- was found to be incorrect and therefore, authorisation under section 132A of the Act has been issued on 5/9/2013 by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and the aforesaid amount of cash of Rs. 32,64,560/- is ordered to be seized and subsequently cash has been requisitioned from police officer of Dariapur Police Station on 6/9/2013 which has been deposited in PD Account of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad with RBI, Ahmedabad. That thereafter, the petitioner accepted that the amount of Rs. 32,64,560/- seized by the police is unaccounted income and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uisitioned and/or at least release the amount after deducting advance tax treating the cash amount of Rs. 32,64,560/- as undisclosed income of the petitioner / income of the petitioner in the AY 2014-2015. 4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. An Affidavit in reply is filed opposing the present Special Civil Application. It is submitted by Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that as the petitioner failed to disclose the source of cash of Rs. 32,64,560/- seized / requisitioned under section 132A of the IT Act has been correctly issued after recording the reasons thereof. It is submitted that considering clause(c) of sub-section (1) of section 132A of the IT Act authorisation is just, legal and proper and even the requisition of the amount of cash is also in accordance with law. 4.01. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the following facts would justify the authorisation under section 132A of the IT Act and requisition of cash Rs. 32,64,560/- : (i) The Police Sub Inspector, Dariapur Police Station, Ahmedabad vide his le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome and the same should be treated as his income for the current financial year 2013-14 over and above his regular income. (v) Further, in the submission filed by the petitioner on 2/9/2013 in the office of the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Ahmedabad, an Affidavit dated 2/9/2013 duly notarized was also filed (page 48). In his Affidavit on oath, he has worked out his estimated taxable income of Rs. 34,70,012/- and tax thereon payable with cess of Rs. 8,98,678/-. He promised to pay the entire tax by way of advance tax and before the release of cash seized. He has also promised that he will not claim any Income Tax Refund for A.Y. 2014-15 from the Income Tax Department at Palanpur, Ahmedabad or any other cities of India. (vi) Taking into consideration of the facts, an authorization under section 132A of the Act was issued on 5/9/2013 by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad. Subsequently cash was requisitioned from Police Inspector, Dariapur Police Station, Ahmedabad on 6/9/2013 which was deposited in the P.D. Account No.S/5055601059 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-IV, Ahmedabad with RBI, Ahmedabad vide Chalan's Serial No.215 on 10/9/2013 (Annexure-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner failed to disclose the source of the aforesaid huge amount of cash and even his explanation was found to be incorrect and/or the petitioner could not substantiate his initial claim that the said amount was received by him from his father and family members by selling jeweleries and thereafter after recording the reasons when the amount has been requisitioned after valid authorisation, it cannot be said that the authorisation under section 132A of the IT Act is illegal, unauthorised and/or contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5.04. Now, so far as the prayer of the petitioner to release the balance amount after deducting tax on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 32,64,560/- treating the said amount as undisclosed income of the petitioner in the AY 2014-15 is concerned, as such considering section 153A of the IT Act the same is not required to be granted. In any case, application of the petitioner for release of the cash is pending before the appropriate authority / concerned AO, Palanpur office and considering proviso to section 132B of the IT Act, it is ultimately for the concerned AO to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner for release of the cash....