TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions. Rule D. B. was issued vide order dated January 19, 2000. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have moved the present applications praying that the seized amount be released to them subject to the petitioners furnishing bank guarantees for refund of the amount. The applications have been mainly contested on behalf of the Income-tax Department. So far as learned counsel appearing for the Director of Enforcement is concerned, his main concern has been that in the event of order of confiscation being passed in the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner, Amrik Singh, the case property which happens to be the said amount of cash should be available to the Department. Learned counsel argued that if the amount is ordered to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of Enforcement vide its order dated August 22, 1997. A copy of this order has been placed on record by learned counsel for the Income-tax Department along with the reply to the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our attention to the fact that as of today there is no demand existing against the petitioners so far as the Income-tax Department is concerned in respect to the money in question. As a matter of fact the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99 is admittedly still pending. Learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to dispute the fact that as of today no demand is pending with respect to this amount. About the applicability of section 132A, learned counsel submits that the statements mad....