Case Law Details
ORDER
Ahhay M. Naik, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the warrant of authorization dated 11.06.2007 issued under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby respondent No. 1 requisitioned the amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- seized from petitioner No. 2 by Police Station In-charge, Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that at about 2.45 AM on 10.06.2007, the City Superintendent of Police, Indore intimated telephonkally the ITO (Investigation) about the seizure by Police Station In-charge of Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore of cash amount of Rs. 1,23,50,000/- from the possession of four persons on checking of luxury bus number MP-41 P-0150, which was scheduled to Ahmedabad from Indore. A request was made by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Indore to the Police Station In-charge of Chandan Nagar Police Station that the department has stated angrily with regard to the sources of seized amount and the same should not be released to any one until enquiry by the Income Tax Department is completed. A sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- was seized from the custody of petitioner No.2, whose statement was recorded on 10.06.2007 itself under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act). This petition relates to the authorization issued in respect of the said amount. Warrant of authorization was issued on 11.06.2007, which has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the authority had no information in his possession to enable him to form a reason to believe that money seized from petitioner No.2 has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the IT Act.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s. Patel Rajesh Kumar Amrutlal & Company, a partnership firm duly constituted under the deed of partnership dated 02.12.2006 (Annexure P/1), whereas petitioner No. 2 is Amish Kumar Patel from whose possession the amount in question was seized. It is stated in the petition that petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of rendering Courier Services to its clients viz. in relation to envelopes, parcels, money and other valuable articles. Article including cash is accepted from the clients by giving proper printed receipt, containing relevant particulars. Such receipts are prepared in duplicate and the original is handed over to the persons concerned, whereas second copy is retained by the petitioner-firm. Petitioner No. 1 is having PAN AAJFP2745 E. Proper jurisdiction over the petitioners firm is that of Additional CIT Range-2, Ahmedabad and Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad. It is further stated that the Main Office of the petitioner-firm is at Ahmedabad with its branch at Indore having its Office at Lodhi Rajput Complex, Ram Mandir, 1st Floor, 18 Jail Road, Indore. Petitioner firm’s branch at Indore required an amount of Rs. 26,00,000/-, which was arranged and sent to Indore by Head Office. Later on, the said amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- was handed over to be transferred to its Head Office, which was being carried by petitioner No. 2, who was an employee of the petitioner’s firm. He was intercepted on 10.06.2007, when he was carrying the money from Indore to Ahmedabad in a bus, by Chandan Nagar Police and the amount in question was seized from him. The factum of seizure was intimated by the Police Authorities to Income Tax Department. Consequently, respondent No. 1 issued a warrant of authorization on 11.06.2007, in exercise of its powers under Section 132A(1) of the IT Act and has proposed to requisition the said amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- seized from the possession of petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that the aforesaid warrant of authorization issued by respondent No. 1 requisitioning thereby the seized cash from the Police Authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction for want of satisfaction of the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 132A of the IT Act. According to the petitioner, there was no information in possession of respondent No. l, which would lead to information of belief about the existence of any of the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (c) of the said provision. According to the petitioner, the authorization was issued merely on account of the seizure, without having any material requisite for the satisfaction to have reason to believe that money has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the IT Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
