TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur which is the registered office of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Income Tax authorities during the course of survey seized cash amounting to Rs. 64,56,970/- and impounded the books of account. Besides cash, incriminating evidence were found at the premises of the petitioners. These documents indicated that the petitioners were taking cash from various parties and returning the money via cheques to the same parties in the guise of unsecured loan and long term capital gain (LTGC). 3. The statement of one of the directors, Sri Gaya Prasad Gupta was recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Act, who was asked to explain the source of cash found at the premises of the petitioners. However, he failed to explain t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Kanpur to deposit in the P.D. Account to adjust the seized amount against the liability to be determined on the completion of assessment under Section 153-A of the Act as per the provisions of Section 132-A of the Act. 5. Petitioner No.1 had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Tax No.458 of 2015 for quashing of the search made by the Income Tax Authorities on 28.04.2015 under Section 132 of the Act at premises No.7/125, C-2, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur with a further prayer to return the records so seized under the search. 6. This Court called for original record from the authorities and after perusing the record and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties vide final judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess premises and the banks of the petitioners with interest. This Court on 18.05.2017 passed the following order in the present writ petition:- "Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra,J. During the search operations an amount of Rs. 64,56,970/- which was found in cash in the premises of petitioner no. 1 was seized by the Income Tax Department. It was deposited in the bank account of petitioner no. 1. After deposit of the aforesaid amount a total of Rs. 1,55,14,108/- was withdrawn from the bank accounts of petitioner no. 1 and the other petitioners and was taken away by the department. Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department was called upon to pin point if such amount was withdraw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....From the perusal of this order, it appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Court that search and seizure operation of the authorities was carried out not only at the business premises of the petitioners but also at the banks as well wherein huge unexplained cash was deposited by the petitioners. 9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Department had refunded a sum of Rs. 90,57,138/- to the petitioners. On 16.08.2017, this Court passed the following order:- "Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. A sum of Rs. 90,57,138/- has been refunded to the petitioner in the month of June/July 2017. Sri Ghildyal is awaiting instructions for the payment of interest on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.458 of 2015 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 07.07.2015 but the petitioners did not annexed the judgment and order dated 07.07.2015 passed by this Court with the present writ petition. 13. We are, therefore, of the view that present writ petition ought not to have been filed as it is not maintainable because cause of action remains the same in both the writ petitions. 14. Be that as it may, we have considered the submissions of the parties on merit as well. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the assessment proceedings under Section 153-A of the Act have not yet been finalised. The petitioners have not been co-operating in the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the assessment proceedings u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be higher and, accordingly, the seized cash under Section 132 of the Act was appropriated against the assessee's tax liability but the fact of the matter is that the order of the assessing officer was overturned by the Tribunal finally on 20-2-2004. As a matter of fact, the interest for the post-assessment period i.e. from 4-3-1994 until refund on the excess amount has already been paid by the Department to the assessee. The Department denied the payment of interest to the assessee under Section 132-B(4)(b), according to Mr Arijit Prasad, the learned counsel for the Revenue on the ground that the refund of excess amount is governed by Section 240 of the Act and Section 132-B(4)(b) of the Act has no application. But, in our view, Sect....