TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elease cash amount of Rs. 38,08,700/- produced in the court by Dy.S.P. of Police, Mananthavady and dismissed Cr.M.P.No.4857/2014 filed by the petitioner seeking custody of cash, invoking Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The person, who claimed to be entitled to possess the cash, filed Cr.M.P.No.4018/2014 which was, however, allowed in part. He is the first respondent in this Crl.M.C. and has not filed any proceeding challenging the correctness of the order of the learned Magistrate. 3. On 14.8.2014, the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrested the second respondent in this Crl.M.C. with currency notes of Rs. 38,08,700/- for his failure to account for its possession. The cash was produced before JFCM-II, Mananthavady. The investigation did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts also before the court accounting for the possession of cash. 6. The learned Magistrate found that the tax Department did not file any separate objection to Cr.M.P.No.4018/2014 and therefore took the view that the tax authorities have no claim over the money seized as if the first respondent was entitled to interim custody. 7. However, giving due effect to the apprehension expressed by the Income Tax department, the petitions were disposed of with a direction that 60% of the amount in deposit shall be released to the first respondent, provided he produced a bank guarantee or adequate security of immovable property for the amount released. The balance 40% was ordered to be retained in court till the culmination of the inquiry procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or cash from the custody of the concerned officer or the authority in possession of the same. But the law appears to be clear that when cash seized by a police officer is reported to the Magistrate under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and deposited, the Income Tax authorities are not justified in issuing any command to the court demanding release of cash since the expressions officer or authority referred to in Section 132 A cannot be understood to take in a court also, as held in Abdul Khader v. Sub Inspector of Police and ors. [(1999) 240 ITR 489(Ker)]. The law to be followed in such situation was settled in K.Choyi v. Syed Abdulla Bafakky Thangal [1980] 123 ITR 435 and it was followed in Abdul Khader's case also. The decision of the Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of more amount. 13. Going through the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, his contention appears to be that the cash seized from his possession is an accounted money for which he is not liable to be assessed for the amount as fixed by the authorities under the Act. 14. The assessment order dated 29.12.2018 produced before this Court shows that the first respondent was assessed after following the procedure prescribed by the Act. He cannot therefore contend in this proceeding that he is not liable for payment of tax, interest and penalty unless the order itself is challenged before the appropriate authority competent to entertain appeal under the Act. As to the amount for which he could be finally held liable, it i....