IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
V. Gopala Gowda, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
VISA COMTRADE LIMITED - APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 572 of 2011
Decided On : 18-05-2011
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - SECTION 132 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - PROHIBITORY ORDER - VALIDITY - SATISFACTION OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER - REASON TO BELIEVE - UNDISCLOSED INCOME - SEIZURE OF MONEY FROM BANK ACCOUNT - CONVERSION INTO DEMAND DRAFT - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a company, challenged the prohibitory order issued u/s 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on its bank account and the subsequent seizure of Rs. 12.39 crores from the said account by the Income Tax Department. The Petitioner contended that the prohibitory order and seizure were illegal as the Department failed to establish that the money in the account represented undisclosed income.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the issuance of the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) and the warrant of authorization dated 07.01.2011 and Panchanama dated 08.01.2011 were not valid in law. The Court found that the Department failed to record any valid reason to conclude that the amount deposited in the said current account was either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the Petitioner. The Court also held that the subsequent action of converting the money lying in the current account into Demand Draft/pay order in favour of the Commissioner and subsequently withdrawing the same from the said current account was also not valid in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the prohibitory order issued u/s 132(3) of the Act and the authorization dated 07.01.2011 and Panchanama dated 08.01.2011 are valid? 2. Whether the Income Tax Department is justified in converting the money lying in the current account into Demand Draft/pay order in favour of the Commissioner and subsequently withdrawing the same from the said current account?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the issuance of the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) and the warrant of authorization dated 07.01.2011 and Panchanama dated 08.01.2011 were not valid in law. The Court found that the Department failed to record any valid reason to conclude that the amount deposited in the said current account was either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the Petitioner. 2. The Court held that the subsequent action of converting the money lying in the current account into Demand Draft/pay order in favour of the Commissioner and subsequently withdrawing the same from the said current account was also not valid in law.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the warrant of authorization issued in respect of the current account in question and Panchanama dated 08.01.2011. The Court also directed the Income Tax Department to bring back Rs. 12.39 crores along with interest accrued thereon into the current account of the Petitioner-Company maintained with Punjab National Bank, Station Square, Bhubaneswar forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing/ setting aside the prohibitory order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure-1) passed u/s 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of Current Account No. 0553002100028097 of the Petitioner-Company maintained with O.P. No. 7-Punjab National Bank, Station Square Branch, Bhubaneswar and for declaratory relief declaring issuance of fresh warrant of authorization dated 07.01.2011 and Panchanama dated 08.01.2011 and withdrawal of Rs. 12.39 crores from the aforesaid Current Bank Account of the Petitioner by opposite party-bank authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction. The further prayer of the Petitioner is to direct opp. parties to bring back Rs. 12.39 crores in the above Current Account of the Petitioner in question maintained with Opposite Party No. 7-Bank.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Petitioner is a Company incorporated on 9th August 2006 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ( in short, "Companies Act") having its registered office at HUL building, 2nd floor, 9 Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071. The Petitioner-Company is an Assessee under the Act, under the jurisdiction of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Kolkata having Permanent Account No. AACCV3366R and has been assessed to income tax since 2006-07. The Petitioner-Company is mainly engaged in trading of coal, coke, minerals and metals. The assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 has already been completed and the Petitioner-Company has submitted its return of income tax before the Deputy Commissioner/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
3. To carry on its business, the Petitioner-Company enters into contract with the international supplier for purchase of coal, coke, minerals and metals and the terms of payment to the said supplier provide that the supply of materials is to be made through Letters of Credit issued by a Bank so that the international supplier is protected of its payment. Upon signing of the contract, the Petitioner-Company through its Bank (O.P. No. 7) opened issuance of Letters of Credit of 180 days on the Bank of the suppliers which are located overseas. The Petitioner-Company maintains a current Account bearing No. 0553002100028097 (for short, 'the Account in question') with O.P. No. 7-Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar and the said Account in question has been earmarked for payment of Letters of Credit due.
4. On 11.11.2010 and 12.11.2010, a search and seizure operation was conducted by O.P. No. 3-the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bhubaneswar u/s 132 of the Act in the Petitioner's registered office and other group of companies. During the course of search and seizure, the officials seized certain documents and issued Panchanama and also took soft copies of accounts maintained on ERP (SAP) as well as on Tally. On 11.11.2010, O.P. No. 5-the Asst. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) also issued prohibitory orders (Annexure-1) u/s 132(3) of the Act on the Bank accounts of all the group of companies of VISA Steel Limited including the Petitioner Company, Bank accounts of their promoters and family members including the Account in question of the Petitioner Company maintained at the Branch of O.P. No. 7-Bank. Vide letter dated 15.11.2010(Annexure-2), the Petitioner-Company made a request to O.P. No. 5 for revocation of prohibitory order issued u/s 132(3) of the Act. The said letter was communicated along with copy of audited balance sheet as on 31st March, 2010, detailed reconciliation statement of Bank account, copy of IT return acknowledgement, Bank statement/confirmation as on 31st March, 2010. Pursuant to letter Annexure-2, O.P. No. 5 has withdrawn the prohibitory orders from some of the Bank accounts but did not withdraw the same issued against the Current Account in question
Sriram Jaiswal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax and Others
Windson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
K.C.C. Software Ltd. and Others Vs. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) and Others
Ritesh Tewari and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Rajkot
Upen Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam and Others
Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Narvedshwar Mishra (Dead) by Lrs. and Others
Om Parkash Jindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
H.L. Sibal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Rudrachar Vs. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) and Others
Lan Eseda Steels Ltd. and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Suresh Chand Agarwal Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.