(1) IN these appeals, the Income Tax Department seized from one of the appellants a certain sum of money. In the other appeal, the money was seized from the safe deposit of a bank and the appellant states that the amount had been deposited by him with the Manager of the bank for safe custody. These amounts have been seized by the department under Section 132(1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellants, however, claim that these amounts had been intended for purchasing Special Bearer Bonds and that the department has seized the amounts before this intention could be carried into effect. The question is whether there is anything in law which prohibits the department from seizing these amounts merely because they are, even accepting the appellants case, intended to be invested in Special Bearer Bonds. This question has been answered in the negative by the High court ofA. P..

(2) WE have heard counsel at great length. We consider it unnecessary to discuss the matter elaborately because, in our opinion, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Union of India, the question is covered by the decision of this court in R.K. Garg v. Union of India. The observations at p