At The Initial Stage Itself, The Present Petitioner Filed Writ Taxno. 172 Of 1999 (Vidit Kumar Agarwal v. Director Of Income Tax, Kanpur And Others). It Was Disposed Of By Order Dated19.03.1999, With The Following Observation

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 988 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vidit Kumar AgarwalRespondent :- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Ayeekar Bhawan Civil Lines Jhansi And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal,Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, Advocate assisted by SriSuyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriGaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seekingrefund of Rs. 16,00,000/- seized from him on 03.06.1998 underthe provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred toas "the Act") together with interest. Undisputedly the petitioner-Vidit Kumar Agarwal along withone Ram Krishna Agarwal and Deepak Kumar Agarwal wastravelling in a car on 03.06.1998, when the police interceptedthose persons and amounts Rs.16,00,000/- (from the petitioner-Vidit Kumar Agarwal), Rs. 8,00,000/- (from Ram KrishnaAgarwal ) and Rs. 8,34,600/- (from Deepak Kumar Agarwal),were detained. That information was passed on to the IncomeTax Authorities, who recquisitioned the entire moneyintercepted by the police authorities, under Section 132A of theAct. At the initial stage itself, the present petitioner filed Writ TaxNo. 172 of 1999 (Vidit Kumar Agarwal vs. Director of Income Tax, Kanpur and others). It was disposed of by order dated19.03.1999, with the following observation: "The case of the petitioner is that the entire amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- isthe disclosed income of the petitioner and the same was also disclosed tothe respondents. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed toconsider the case of the petitioner carefully and shall also decide thequestion whether the aforesaid amount which was seized, is the disclosedor undisclosed income of the petitioner first and thereafter, they shall beentitled to proceed in the matter. We further direct that the amount seizedfrom the petitioner shall be entitled to proceed in the matter. We furtherdirect that the amount seized from the petitioner shall be kept in the fixeddeposit bearing interest therein. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. There shall Petitioner along with Sri Ram Krishna Agarwal and Sri DeepakKumar Agarwal were subjected to block assessment under theAct vide order dated 29.06.2000 in the status of Association ofPersons (A.O.P. in short), at total income Rs. 40,76,000/-including the cash Rs. 32,34,600/- seized from them, on03.06.1998. The said block assessment order was partly set aside in appealby the CIT (Appeal) vide its order dated 03.05.2002. Theassesses carried the matter in appeal to the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").Vide its order dated 20.01.2005, the Tribunal allowed theappeal and quashed the block assessment order dated29.06.2000 It disbelieved the case set up by the assessingauthority of AOP. Though the aforesaid order of the Tribunalwas challenged by the Revenue in further appeal to this Court,filed under Section 260A of the Act, the petitioner's AssessingAuthority framed the reassessment order against the petitioner,dated 22.12.2006. However, in view of the fact that the Tribunalhad quashed the block assessment order, the CIT (Appeal) setaside the reassessment order dated 22.12.2006. That appellateorder was upheld by the Tribunal on 12.10.2012. Also againstthe order dated 20.01.2005 passed by the Tribunal, this Courtdismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue vide its order dated20.04.2016. Thus the Tribunal's order dated 20.12.2006 and12.10.2012 have attained finality. It is in the above undisputed fact that the petitioner claimsrefund of Rs. 16,00,000/-, together with interest. It has beendenied. By communication dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-CA 1to the counter affidavit), the petitioner has been required tofurnish the bank account details of the AOP, so that the amountof Rs. 51,75,506 being the principal amount seized togetherwith statutory interest may be refunded to the A.O.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision ofanother Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 1202 of2007 (Umang Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central Circle), Kanpur and others) decided on 06.05.2015 toclaim further compensation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and havingperused the record the existence of the AOP had beendisbelieved by the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.01.2005while quashing the block assessment order. That that order hasattained finality owing to the further appeal filed by theRevenue being dismissed being below the monetary limit. The reassessment order was also set aside by the CIT (Appeal)vide order dated 31.03.2021. Further appeal filed by theRevenue was dismissed by order dated 12.10.2012. That orderhas also attained finality. There exists no demand against thepetitioner arising from the seizure of the cash. No other demandis claimed to be existing against the petitioner as may allow therevenue authorities to detain any part of that amount. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 132 B (4) (b) readwith Section 244A (1) (b), the petitioner is further foundentitled to interest at the rate of 1 and 1/2 per cent per monthfrom the expiry of 20 days from the last authorization issuedagainst him, arising from the seizure/detention ofRs.32,34,600/- made by the police authorities, on 03.06.1998. Thus the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of Rs.16,00,000/- together with interest as above. The interest at thatrate would be applied from that start date, up to the date ofactual payment made to the petitioner, on the amount of16,00,000/- only. As to the balance amount of the other persons namely Sri RamKirshna Agarwal (vis-a-vis for seizure of Rs. 8,00,000/-) andSri Deepak Kumar Agarwal (vis-a-vis for seizure of Rs.8,34,600) they may remain similarly entitled. We find that interest of justice has been met in the present caseinasmuch as the block assessment order arising from theseizure, was made in the status of A.O.P. While that findingmay have been erroneous, the Tribunal quashed the entireassessment proceedings, without allowing the revenueauthorities to make a regular reassessment. Hence we do notfind it a fit case to award any further amount to the petitioner,by way of cost or compensation. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.10.2021Ashish Pd.