Back
Refuses Stay on ITAT Order, Directs Release of ₹17.66 Crore
In a significant ruling that reinforces the temporal limits of the 's power over , the has declined to stay an order of the directing the release of ₹17.66 crore in cash seized during a search operation. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, held that once the assessment of the searched person is completed, the over the under , automatically extinguishes, and the Department cannot continue to withhold the funds through subsequent proceedings against third parties.
Background: The Seizure and the Dispute
The cash in question was seized by the from lockers belonging to Shakun Tamang and Ashish Kapoor during a search conducted under . Subsequently, , a company with which Ashish Kapoor was associated, claimed that the belonged to it and sought credit for the amount as for . The Department, however, refused to recognize the claim, arguing that Ashish Kapoor's assessment was still pending at the time the company filed its return, and therefore the cash could not be treated as by . The Department later initiated under against , relying on the as evidence of .
The ITAT, however, ruled in favour of , directing the Department to treat the cash as and refund the balance after adjusting any existing tax liability. The Department appealed this order before the , seeking a stay on the release of the funds pending the appeal.
The High Court’s Reasoning: Charge Extinguished Upon Completion of Assessment
The core legal issue before the was whether the Department could retain the after the assessment of the searched person—Ashish Kapoor—had been completed. The Court examined Section 132B, which provides the framework for the application of . The provision allows the Department to adjust against existing tax liabilities or liabilities that may arise upon completion of the relevant assessment. However, the Court noted that this charge is not permanent and is tied to the assessment process.
“The moment assessment of searched person was made () the charge over the cash by virtue of Section 132B … stood extinguished,” the Court observed. This statement encapsulates the central holding: once the assessment is finalized, the statutory basis for retaining the ceases to exist. The Department cannot continue to hold the cash merely because it might initiate separate against a different entity.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court drew a distinction between the searched individuals (Shakun Tamang and Ashish Kapoor) and , which was not the subject of the search warrant. It noted that no had been issued against , and therefore the Department could not project the seizure onto that entity. The Department’s attempt to justify retention by pointing to ongoing under was rejected. The Court held that the against did not revive the charge over the cash, as the charge under Section 132B had already been extinguished upon completion of Ashish Kapoor’s assessment.
Furthermore, the Court observed that when the Department finalized Ashish Kapoor’s assessment on , it did not raise any demand relating to the . Instead, the Department accepted Kapoor’s claim that the cash belonged to . This acceptance, the Court reasoned, further weakened the Department’s argument that it could retain the funds.
The Order: Release with Conditions
The directed the Assessing Officer to release the of ₹17.66 crore to within 30 days, after adjusting the purported tax liability of ₹3.74 crore that the Department had calculated. The Court also directed the Department to compute the interest payable on the excess amount. However, in a pragmatic move, the Court ordered that the interest amount be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit receipt (FDR) pending the decision of a on the broader question of whether interest is payable on excess .
The Court admitted the Department’s appeal on several questions of law, including whether could claim the as and whether the ITAT was justified in directing the credit and refund of the balance. By refusing the stay, the High Court ensured that the amount would not remain locked with the Department indefinitely, while preserving the substantive questions for a full hearing.
Legal Analysis and Implications
This judgment clarifies the temporal scope of Section 132B and reinforces the principle that the Department’s power to retain is not open-ended. The charge under Section 132B is a provisional mechanism intended to secure potential tax liabilities until the assessment is completed. Once the assessment is final, the Department must either adjust the assets against the determined liability or release them. The Department cannot use against a third party as a justification for retaining assets that were seized from a different person.
From a practical standpoint, this decision will impact how the handles in cases where the ownership of the cash is disputed or claimed by an entity not covered by the search warrant. It underscores the need for the Department to be diligent in completing assessments and raising demands within the statutory framework. If the Department fails to demonstrate that the is linked to a pending or prospective liability of the searched person, the charge must be discharged.
The case also touches on the issue of by a third party. The High Court has admitted the appeal on whether can unilaterally treat the as its own . This question may have far-reaching consequences for taxpayers who attempt to appropriate funds seized from related persons. The ’s eventual ruling on interest entitlement will also clarify the financial consequences for the Department when it wrongfully retains assets.
Impact on Tax Practice
For tax practitioners, this judgment offers a clear roadmap for challenging the prolonged retention of . It confirms that the ITAT’s view—that the charge under Section 132B is coextensive with the assessment process—is correct. Taxpayers whose assets have been seized and whose assessments have been completed should now have a stronger basis to demand release without waiting for parallel proceedings.
Moreover, the decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between the searched person and other claimants. The Department cannot simply ignore a valid claim of ownership from a third party, especially when the searched person himself has not raised any objection. The High Court’s observation that the Department accepted Kapoor’s claim during his assessment further bolsters the company’s position.
Conclusion
The ’s refusal to stay the ITAT order marks a clear reaffirmation of the statutory scheme under Section 132B. By directing the release of ₹17.66 crore in , the Court has ensured that the cannot indefinitely hold assets after the assessment is completed. While the broader legal questions regarding third-party self-assessment credit and interest remain pending, the immediate relief for is significant. This judgment is likely to be cited in numerous pending disputes over and will guide both the Department and taxpayers in navigating the complex interplay between search proceedings, assessment, and release of assets.
