TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce-cum-guest house at New Delhi. He contacted one Sri Ganesh Estate, New Delhi, and the said purchase deal having not materialised, he returned to Chennai on 25.11.2006. On arrival at the domestic Airport at Chennai, at about 11.00 p.m. on 25.11.2006, the officials attached to the Income Tax Department intercepted the Chairman and seized the cash carried by him. The Department issued summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the same day and a sworn statement was recorded from the Chairman. A Panchanama was issued by the first respondent along with cash seizure and simultaneous search was conducted by the Income Tax officials on 26.11.2006. On 28.11.2006 summon was issued to the Chairman by the first respondent. Panchanama and prohibitory order was issued under section 132(3) by the Income Tax authorities to the bank officials and freezed the bank account of the Trust and the Chairman. On 1.12.2006, a sworn statement was recorded and the office premises of the Trust was sealed and documents were also seized. After enquiry, the prohibitory order was lifted by the department permitting the petitioner and the Trust to operate the bank accounts. 4. It is stated in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mostly in the denomination of Rs.1000 and Rs.500 bundles, which carry the seal of banks at North India like New Delhi, Ajmeer, etc. The statement given by the petitioner was not cogent and self contradictory. In the sworn statement recorded under section 131 at the time of interception, petitioner stated that the said cash was unaccounted. Based on the entire statements and contradictions including the admission, an authorisation for search and seizure was issued. Consequently, the residence of the petitioner/Chairman and Trust office premises were surveyed/searched and various books and accounts and documents were impounded. It was found that the Trust did not maintain regular books of accounts for the moneys received from the parents/alleged public. There was intermingling of funds between the Trust and the Trustees and diversion of funds from the Trust to individual accounts. On the basis of the above materials and findings substantial legal issue arose as to how the public charitable trust funds were kept unaccounted, diverted to the trustees for their personal use, which are to be determined during regular assessment. 6. It is further stated that appraisal report was furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents on the other hand submitted that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner that the amount carried by him was unaccounted and there is inherent contradictions in the statements given by the petitioner by stating that the amount was carried from Chennai to New Delhi in two baggages, however, the Jet Airways stated that the petitioner carried only one hand baggage while he was travelling from Chennai to New Delhi; the Rs.1000 and Rs.500 bundles carried the seal of the banks in the north India like Ajmeer, New Delhi; and therefore the respondents ordered assessment proceedings and the same is notified to the Central Circle, Madurai and the same are in progress. Therefore, the department cannot return the amount seized before finalising the assessment proceedings. With regard to the decision relied on by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the decision reported in (2006) 283 ITR 154 (Ker) (Dr.N.S.D.Raju v. Director General of Income-tax) considered similar issue and taking note of the amendment issued in sub-section (9A) of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch Assissing Officer." From the perusal of the above provision it is evident that the books of account or other document or any money etc., seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 shall be handed over by the authorised officer to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction within a period of 60 days and thereafter the powers shall be exercised by such assessing officer. 11. Here in this case, the authorised officer is the third respondent, who was also the assessing officer and on transfer, the matter is now pending with the assessing officer viz., Central Circle, Madurai, and therefore retaining the money beyond 60 days is not in violation of the above referred rule. The third respondent was the authorised officer as well as the assessing officer as per Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and now the assessment proceedings are transferred to the Assessing Officer, Madurai Central Circle, under section 120(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Director of Income Tax and all the seized documents are handed over to the Assessing Officer, Madurai. The assessing Officer can retain the books, etc., seized as per section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, till the comple....