TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver for 2015-16 is Rs. 28,34,96,248/-, for 2016-17 is Rs. 20,26,86,915/-, for 2017-18 it is Rs. 20,26,86,915/-, for 2017-18 it is Rs. 73,28,06,623/- and for 2018-19, it is Rs. 72,79,33,999/-. 4. The petitioner contends that it has a large turnover and it handles large quantities of cash which are also disclosed to the Income Tax Department. According to it, there are no proceedings of reopening of assessment pending before the Income Tax Department. 5. The petitioner states that it has business transactions in the State of Telangana also and that it entrusted a sum of Rs. 5.00 Crores to its employee Vipul Kumar Patel for its business purposes. 6. The said individual had come to Hyderabad with friends, and on 23.08.2019 their car a Maruti Ciaz car bearing No.TS09FA 4948 was intercepted by the Task Force Police of the State of Telangana. 7. According to the petitioner, the said employee, his friends, the cash of Rs. 5.00 Crore together with the above vehicle and another car and two wheeler were detained illegally from 23.08.2019 onwards by the Telangana State Police. 8. The GPA holder of the petitioner filed on 27.8.2019 a Habeas Corpus Petition for release of the said persons,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 5.00 Crores along with the detenues to the Income Tax Department and it was acknowledged on 27.08.2019 by the 2nd respondent, the story of 2nd respondent mentioned in the panchanama created by the 2nd respondent as if the Income Tax Department conducted a search at an undisclosed place at 9.00 AM on the next day i.e., 28.08.2019 and that there was an authorization issued for the said search prior thereto, cannot be accepted; that the respondents cannot deny receipt of cash from the Task Force Police on 27.08.2019 and claim that they conducted a search of some undisclosed place and found the cash with Vipul Kumar Patel pursuant to such authorization. The absence of mention of the place of search, according to counsel for the petitioner, is indicative of the false narrative induced by the respondents to mislead the Court and the said panchanama has to be discarded as unbelievable. 13. According to the petitioner, the very seizure of cash from Vipul Kumar Patel without valid authorization under Section 132 is illegal; that the petitioner's cash book, balance sheet show sufficient quantity of cash in hand from which the sum of Rs. 5.00 Crores could have been made available by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant to the Income Tax Department e-mail ID [email protected] and screen shots of the same are filed along with his affidavit. 16. Counsel for petitioner contended that mere possession of cash of large amount without documents regarding its ownership or possession cannot be treated as information relatable to a conclusion that it represented income which would not have been disclosed by Vipul Kumar Agarwal for the purposes of the Act and relied on decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad and others vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation and others1. 17. Counsel for petitioners also relied on D.G.I.T. vs. Spacewood Furnitures (P) Ltd.2 and contended that warrant of authorization for search and seizure can be issued if the authority granting it has information in its possession before it forms an opinion / reasonable belief that person is in possession of money which represents wholly or partly income which had (1997) 5 S.C.C. 321 (2015) 12 S.C.C. 179 not been or would not be disclosed; and there must be application of mind to the material and the formation of opinion must be honest and bona fide. According to counsel for petitioners, the very fact that the money was han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idavit/retraction petition are contrary to the facts submitted by him on oath before the Income Tax Department on 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019. It is also stated that he never filed the said statements before the Department. 24. It is also asserted that in the sworn statements recorded from Vipul Kumar Patel under Section 131(1A) and 132(4) of the Act on 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019, he stated that he studied upto XII standard and that he can read, write, understand and speak in Hindi and that he can also read and understand English language and that the said statements were given without any threat, coercion or undue influence. Consideration by the Court 25. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.23023 of 2019, Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.29297 of 2019 and Sri Suryakiran Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondents in both Writ Petitions. 26. In these Writ Petitions, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the plea of the petitioners for return of the cash of Rs. 5.00 crores to them is legally valid or not. 27. But before that issue is dealt with, we shall first consider as to how the cash i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed Ex.R-8, a panchanama allegedly prepared on 28.08.2019 along with their counter-affidavit referring to a warrant issued to Vipul Kumar Patel for search of a place which is left blank, details of the search party including the 2nd respondent, names of two panch witnesses, one from Nalgonda District and the other from Dabilpura (from the Old City of Hyderabad). It is stated that a warrant of authorization dt.28.08.2019 issued to the 2nd respondent under Section 132 by the Principal Director of Income Tax (INV), Hyderabad, that the said warrant was to search a place (the place of search is left blank) , that Vipul Kumar Patel was present at that place at 9 a.m. on 28.08.2019 and he read the same and Rs. 5.00 crores of cash was seized. 32. How there could be a warrant issued under Section 132 by the Principal Director of Income Tax (INV), Hyderabad to the 2nd respondent without mentioning the place to be searched, is not explained by the respondents 1 and 2. How could there be a search at a place which is not disclosed and left blank by the 2nd respondent and her team allegedly on 28.08.2019 at 9 a.m.? Also, how coincidentally at the time of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r such person will not produce such books of account or other documents even if summons or notice is issued to him Or (b) such person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed. 8.2. Such information must be in possession of the authorised official before the opinion is formed. 8.3. There must be application of mind to the material and the formation of opinion must be honest and bona fide. Consideration of any extraneous or irrelevant material will vitiate the belief/satisfaction." (emphasis supplied). 38. In our opinion, there were no circumstances existing for the Principal Director of Income Tax (INV), Hyderabad to issue any warrant for search or seizure under Section 132 of the Act on 28.8.2019 when the cash had been handed over to the Income Tax Department by the Task Force Police on 27.8.2019 and therefore the seizure of the cash from Vipul Kumar Patel by the respondents and its retention till date by them is per se illegal. 39. In our opinion, intimation by the Police to the Income Tax Department on 27.08.2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y rival claim for the cash of Rs. 5.00 crores by M/s.Umeshchandra & Sons, to file an Inter Pleader suit in a competent Civil Court invoking Order XXXV of C.P.C., but there was no occasion for it to do so in the absence of any claim before it by M/s.P.Umeshchandra & Sons or M/s P.Umeshchandra & Sons. 46. In the absence of any rival claim for the cash amount of Rs. 5.00 crores by any third party, the respondents cannot imagine a third party claimant and on that pretext retain the cash indefinitely from M/s.Mectec thereby violating Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 47. We may also point out that a return of income would be filed by M/s.Mectec, the petitioner in W.P.No.23023 of 2019 for the annual year 2019-20 only after 31st March, 2020. The explanation of the cash transaction can be expected to be found only after such return of income is filed by the petitioner. There is no basis for the respondents to presume that petitioner would not disclose the cash transaction of Rs. 5.00 crore in its Income Tax return which was not filed by the alleged date of seizure of the cash by the Police, i.e., 26.08.2019. 48. As rightly contended by the petitioner, an income tax inspection ....