Vinod Kumar Gupta - (1.) BY this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the two identical writ petitions analogously, because these relate to the same subject matter and transaction.
(2.) BROADLY speaking, two questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions. Firstly, as to whether the Revenue was right in appropriating to itself temporarily the amount of Rs. 6 lakh seized by it during the search carried out at the premises of the petitioner until an order in terms of Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed and, secondly, whether the search and seizure as ordered in terms of Section 132(1)(c) of the Act and the consequential orders passed under Section 132(5) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner under Section 132(12) of the Act were correct or not? Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the Revenue after obtaining some information about the petitioner having undisclosed income and not paying tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, carried out search and in course of search found an amount of Rs. 60 lakh lying in the account of the petitioner, which he was maintaining in the Bank of India, Ranchi Main Road Branch In terms of Section 132(1) of the Act, it ordered the seizure of the aforesaid amount as was discovered during the search operation carried out at the premises of the petitioner and the Bank, because the Revenue suspected that the aforesaid amount was the undisclosed income of the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the seizure of the amount was ordered in terms of Section 132(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. Later on, on 30th May, 1990, the Income Tax Department asked the Bank to make over the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60 lakh to the Income Tax Department and in compliance of the panchnama issued by the Income Tax Department, the Bank actually made over the aforesaid money to the Department.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was illegal and inappropriate on the part of the Revenue to have taken the money even temporarily because the money could not have been taken until and unless an order under Section 132(5) of the Act was passed. According to him, all that the Revenue could do was to make an order in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 132 of the Act, which empowers the Revenue to issue direction to the holder of the money not to part with the money. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and on consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter and on application of the principles as emanating from various Sub-sections of Section 132 of the Act, we are of the firm view that there was no disability in law whatsoever as far as the Revenue is concerned in appropriating to itself temporarily the money seized by it until an order is passed in terms of subsection (5) of Section 132 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, because, in our considered opinion, the expression 'seizure' as occurring in clause (iii) of Sub-clause (B) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act empowers the Revenue to remove the money from the place where it has been seized as a consequence of the search made in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act.;