Case Law Details
Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Facts- On 31.10.2017 a search was conducted at the residence of petitioner nos.1 to 4 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and amount of Rs.48,00,000/- alongwith gold jewellery were seized by the respondents. On 01.11.2017 a panchanama regarding seizure of cash had been made as per Section 132(B) of the Act, 1961. On 29.11.2017 the petitioners filed their explanation explaining the source of the said cash and jewellery. The petitioners applied for release of the assets on 29.11.2017 as per proviso to Section 132(B)(1)(i) of the Act, 1961. On 23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019, the respondents accepted the return of income filed by the petitioners for passing an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 in the case of petitioner nos.1 to 4 and 10 and assessed the income at Rs.nil.
Between 07.02.2020 to 03.09.2020 the petitioners requested respondents to release the seized cash of Rs.48,00,000/-. On 17.11.2021, the respondent no.3 partly released the cash of Rs.23,71,000/- without there being payment of any statutory interest as per Section 132(B)(4)(a & b). It is the case of the petitioners that, remaining amount of Rs.24,29,000/- was retained by respondents unlawfully.
On 26.02.2021, the petitioners filed this petition praying for various reliefs. During the pendency of this petition, respondents partly released cash amount of Rs.23,71,000/-.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have already held that, the assessee who is deprived of refund of their amount in view of wrongful withholding of their amount by the authority cannot be refused to compensate for such wrongful deprivation of their amount lying with the authority for no fault of the assessees.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
