2023 (8) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Standing Counsel ORDER Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the third respondent to adjust the cash that was seized from the hands of the petitioner's friend namely Nathar Sahib on 20.06.2020. After the cash was seized on 20.06.2020, seven different Assessment Orders came to be passed on 27.03.2022 for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 to 2021-2022. The cash of Rs.99,75,000/- which is said to belong to the petitioner and was seized from the hands of the petitioner's aforesaid friend, was taxed in the hands of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 3. Meanwhile, against the aforesaid Assessment Orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... property (cash) impugned in the present reference, held by Shri.Nathar Sahib (defendant, D1, Benamidar) is a Benami Property, within the meaning of section 2(8) of the PBPTA; the said benami property, is a subject matter of Benami transaction within the meaning of section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA; (ii) The Reference filed by the I.O., Chennai BPU, bearing No.R-592/2022 is allowed; and (iii) The Provisional Attachment Order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the I.O. u/s 24(4)(a)(i) of the PBPT Act, is confirmed." 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.9868 of 2023, which came to be allowed at the time of admission on 30.03.2023, by quashing the said order therein dated 14.02.2023 of the fifth respondent herein (first respond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10. The prayer of the petitioner for a Mandamus cannot be countenanced without an application by the petitioner under first proviso to Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, although there could be a corresponding duty on the part of the respondents to appropriate the amount that was seized on 20.06.2020, if an application is made. If the aforesaid seized amount is to be treated as an asset of the petitioner and adjusted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has to first file an application as is contemplated under the aforesaid provision. 11. Considering t....