TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12,500/- belonging to petitioner no.1 and Rs.2,12,12,500/- belonging to Sri Ashok Kumar Jain, father of the petitioner no.2, Rs.2,15,12,000/- belonging to Sri Deepak Kumar Jain and Rs.2,07,12,500/- of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain were seized. The proceedings for block assessment were initiated against all four brothers and they had participated in the same. It is stated in the writ petition that all the cases relevant to the search and seizure were completed and refunds short by Rs.72,72,524/- was granted to petitioner no.1 and Rs.72,69,248/- were granted to the petitioner no.2. Sri Deepak Kumar Jain had also received refunds short by Rs.72,72,524/-. It is stated that on an application under RTI Act filed by the petitioners, CIT Ghaziabad in response to the same vide order dated 20.03.2007 informed that a demand of Rs.2,18,07,748/- was outstanding against one Amrish Kumar Jain and the said dues were appropriated from P.D. account on 18.01.2005 from the legal heirs of deceased Sri Giri Lal Jain. It stated that there is no legal basis to realise outstanding against Sri Amrish Kumar Jain from the P.D. account of the legal heirs of the deceased Sri Giri Lal Jain. It is stated that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners may be allowed to withdraw the prayer no. (i) of the writ petition and they are pressing the prayer no.(ii) with the claim that they are entitled for the mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of the judgment and order dated 11.08.2016 passed in Writ Tax no.1748 of 2011 filed by Deepak Kumar Jain, one of the brothers of the petitioner no.1 and uncle of the petitioner no.2. The counsels for the parties agreed to the extent that the judgment and order dated 11.08.2016 has not been varied, altered or set aside by a higher Court of law. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that while adjudicating the claim of Deepak Kumar Jain for refund, this Court had framed the following question for consideration:- "24. The short question up for consideration in this writ petition is "whether liability of tax of Amrish Kumar Jain has rightly been appropriated from the funds seized from petitioner and kept in P.D. A/c by Revenue." However, while answering the said question, this Court had recorded the events which occurred after the death of Late Giri Lal Jain on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have been a proprietorship firm at that time, having only Amrish Kumar Jain alive. It also appears from order dated 24.03.1986 that same was passed with reference to the issues settled by Settlement Commission under Section 35 of Act, 1957 but no such order of Settlement Commission, relating to the wealth-tax dispute, has been placed on record and what has been stated therein has neither been brought to the notice of Court nor there is any averment that it was communicated to petitioner. Only order of Settlement Commission is on record and is dated 09.01.1996 which is in respect of income-tax. The demand notice placed on record along with supplementary counter affidavit dated 24.03.1986 and 11.01.1989 also relate to wealth-tax liability which has nothing to do with Settlement Commission's order dated 09.01.1996 which was in respect of income-tax liability. How and in what manner wealth-tax liability was created in 1986-89 and such demand could have been saddled upon petitioner could not be demonstrated by respondents at all. " It was also noted that the respondents at no point of time laid their claim that the petitioner namely Deepak Kumar Jain therein or any of his broth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity of hearing. Against a dead person no liability can be created unless his legal heirs are there. If reconstituted firm after death of Girilal Jain is taken to be the legal representative then liability and recovery could have been made from the then partners/ proprietor and not from any person who has no relation, by any means with such reconstituted firm. 39. Facts are evident to show that reconstituted firm or assessment had no participation of petitioner or his brothers. The assessment or settlement, whatsoever may be, all was with the participation of only Amrish Kumar Jain, and quite obvious, as a proprietor of reconstituted firm. If that be so, imposing liability upon petitioner, without placing anything on record that petitioner inherited anything from his father, is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. Petitioner's money was seized in a fresh and separate search and seizure operation and that too conducted in 2004. The search and seizure has nothing to do with any assets of funds of (Late) Girilal Jain who had died some 30 years ago. Nothing could be shown to us, which may authorize respondents to appropriate funds belong to petitioner, which is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment was made against (Late) Girilal Jain and from the assets of deceased which was received by his legal representatives, the demand has been satisfied. At no point of time any notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner or any of his brothers before finalizing the alleged liability of deceased after his death. In fact highhandedness on the part of respondents is writ large from the fact that they did not keep on informing petitioner or his legal brothers but petitioner has to collect correct information by approaching respondents under RTI Act and not otherwise. This clearly shows a hide and seek approach, patently erroneous and malicious in law, on the part of respondents in appropriating assets of petitioner in respect of certain dues which were not shown to be adjustable there against. 49. In our view here is a clear case of patent illegality, unauthorized appropriation, and unfair and unjust treatment made by the respondents to the petitioner in depriving him his huge amount which in law was refundable to him. The action on the part of respondents also comes within the ambit of patent abuse of process of law. " The relief granted to Sri Deepak Kumar J....