2009 (4) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the bank account of M/s.Molly Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., cannot be termed as wrong and hence the amount cannot be refunded. A notice was issued to the assessee company on 18^th July, 2007 under Section 226(3) directing to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,54,248/- as due of Shri Amit Jhaveri on account of Income Tax. A similar notice was issued to HDFC Bank directing the bank to pay the amount due and/or held by them on account of M/s. Molly Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner. Accordingly HDFC had sent the sum of Rs.4,35,459/- being balance in the account of M/s. Molly Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide bank's letter dated 30^th July, 2007. On behalf of the assessee company M/s. Jain Singhal & Associates by letter of 28^th July, 2007 had taken a stand t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to lift the attachment levied on the petitioners, bankers and its depository participants or business associates. After considering the contentions the Tribunal noted that Amit Jhaveri had taken loan and Overdraft facility from Bank of Bank of Baroda and that proceedings had been initiated by the Bank against the said Shri Amit Jhaveri. In those proceedings in the year 1999 it was agreed that the petitioner will pay Rs.1.70 crores on or before 10^th June, 1999 and the bank will release the share of the petitioners (Subhash Arora Investment. On proceedings being transferred to D.R.T. by order dated 7^th April, 2004 the D.R.T. directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.1.70 crores with 15% interest per annum. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y advanced by Jhaveri to M/s. Subhash Arora Investments (I) Pvt. Ltd. Neither in the affidavit filed before the Tax Recovery Officer nor in the petition has the petitioner disclosed these aspects. 5. It is, therefore, clear from the pleadings and documents on record that the petitioner is a guarantor for the loan taken by Shri Subhash Arora on behalf of the M/s. Subhash Arora Investments (I) Pvt. Ltd., The amount is crystalized and in respect of which M/s. Subhash Arora Investments (I) Pvt. Ltd., had deposited the F.D.R. before the DRT which FDR they had sought leave to apply for withdrawal. 6. During the course of the hearing as it was noticed that the same Lawyers are appearing both for M/s. Molly Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., and anot....