TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India/Income Tax Department (for short "the Income Tax Department") whereby they have encashed 4 FDRs. of the petitioners in the denomination of Rs. 20,000/- each made on 6.5.1996. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus thereby directing the said respondents to return and restore the said FDRs. to their original status with damages and interest thereon. 2. Briefly culled out the facts of the case of the petitioners are that respondents-Income Tax Department encashed 4 FDRs. dated 6.5.1996 in the denomination of Rs. 20,000/- each which were in the names of Deepika Oberoi, Hina Oberoi, Baby Deepika Oberoi and Baby Hina, daughters of Kavita Oberoi and deceased Shanti Nath. The said 4 FDRs. which were lying with respondent no. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions. The said 4 FDRs. of Rs. 20,000/- each which actually belonged to Hina Oberoi, Rupinder Oberoi, Baby Hina and Deepika Oberoi alongwith one more FDR made on 3.8.1996 in the denomination of Rs. 14,000/- in the name of Kavita Oberoi, mother and guardian of the petitioners which has never been challenged by her, were held benami by said Sanjay Anand who is said to be in partnership firm, M/s. Om Parkash Sanjay Kumar and M/s. Lime and Chemical Industries. During the assessment proceedings, the statement of Kavita Oberoi, mother and guardian of the petitioners was recorded on 06.1.1997. She stated that she was not even aware of any bank account held by her or by her husband in any bank. The amount of these FDRs. were assessed in the hands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the funds given to the petitioners by the relatives and friends as a help on the sad incident of accidental death of their father on 26th April, 1996 and FDRs. were made on 6th May, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in encashing the FDRs. is totally unwarranted. 5. In stark contrast to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents-Union of India/Income Tax Department, inter alia, vehemently argues that the said FDRs. were benami transactions made by said Sanjay Anand. During the assessment proceedings, Sanjay Anand failed to give any explanation about the disclosed sources of income made in the 4 FDRs. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and getting Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per month. She also stated that they were living hand to mouth. After the death of her husband, she had rental income of Rs. 300/- per month and was sustaining herself with great difficulty. She also stated that she does not have any jewellery to be kept in anybody's locker and even in her own home. It is to be noticed that during search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1995 at the residence of Sh. Raj Pal Anand, the Income Tax Department found a locker key No. 105 which was stated by him to be belonging to Sat Pal Oberoi of Dehradun, who is from in-laws side of the mother of the petitioners. On enquiry with said Sat Pal Oberoi, he informed that the said key belonged to the deceased father of t....