TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, 2008 and that order is also capable of more than one interpretation, then, merely because the petitioner keeps on writing letters or raising a demand on the respondents in writing, would it save the bar of limitation, which is prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a suit for recovery of money. Merely because a writ petition is filed does not mean that this court can pass an order contrary to the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 and grant the relief. All the more when this writ petition is filed in the year 2018 and to be precise on 23rd July, 2018, a good 10 years after the right to recover that money accrued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's advocate says that she would consider this position in law and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th 6% simple interest from the date of the seizure till the date of return. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms." When this order was passed by this Court on 25­-3­-2008, all that the petitioner has done thereafter is to bring to the notice of the authorities this Court's order and direction. However, on 19­-9-­2008, he was informed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exhibit-­D, Page 38) that the seized cash is not lying presently in the custody of the Commissioner of Income Tax­-1, Mumbai. This fact was informed by letter of 8­-9­-2008. That is why the petitioner was requested to give information with regard to the seized cash so that the office expedites the matter. On 24-­10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....From: Kishore J Tanna Tanna House, 2nd Floor, 11/A, Nathalal Parekh Marg, MUMBAI­ 400 001. Date: 5th July, 2017 To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 1(2)(1) Mumbai Re: Proceeding u/s 132(5) of I.T. Act, 1961. Assessment Year 2008­-09 Sub: Refund of Seized cash as per your letter No.DCIT 1(2)/132(5)/2008­-09 Dear Sir, This request is in continuation of our previous letters dated 22.09.2010 [acknowledged on 23.09.10] & 17.05.2010 [Acknowledged on 20.05.2010]. I, Kishore J Tanna would like to draw your attention to your Letter No.DCIT 1(2)/132(5)/2008­09 dated 19th Sept., 2009 from the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income­Tax 1(2), wherein you have confirmed that the assessment u/s 132(h) is comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that these details which he had provided prior as well have not resulted in the alleged admissible refund released or paid with interest. If the petitioner was supposed to receive this amount in terms of this Court's order within 12 weeks from 25­-3­-2008, failing which it was to earn simple interest at 6% from the date of seizure till the date of return, then, we would have expected such a petitioner to move this Court in execution proceedings so as to enforce the order. Chapter XXXIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules is titled as "Rules for the Issue of Writs Under Article 226 of the Constitution Other Than Habeas Corpus". There is a specific Rule therein, namely, Rule 647, which reads as under:­ "R.647. E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment is made and he relies upon a copy of the order in that behalf at pages 45­46 of the paper-­book. He then relies on the letter, copy of which is at page 47 of the paper­-book and says that this is an application for rectification of the mistake in the Assessment Order. This reads as under:­ "Date: 17th May, 2010 To, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) Mumbai Dear Sir, Re:­ Mr. Kishore J. Tanna Sub:­ Rectification U/s. 154 of Assessment order passed U/s.143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act This is in reference to above we on behalf of our client acknowledge the receipt of your above order and wish to state as under. While passing the order you have accepted the income returned by our clien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 7. We are unable to agree with him. The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court's earlier order in the petitioner's Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner's remedy was to challenge it. He does nothing of this kind in the sense he neither avails of the remedies under the I.T. Act, 1961 nor moves any legal forum from September, 2010 to July, 2017. The Department's letter at page 51 is not the only document to be relied on to maintain a second writ petition. That must be read with all the prior communications and the Assessment Order. So read, it is apparent that what the Department....