Jiwan Kumar v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda And Others

CWP-7536-2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7536-2019 Date of Decision: 19.3.2019 Jiwan Kumar Versus ...Petitioner Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J. 1. By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ ofmandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest due on the seizedcash amount of ` 15,02,530/- for the period from 6.1.2012 to 4.7.2017 whenthe amount was refunded. 2.The petitioner is an employee of M/s Khoobsurat Ornaments,Mansa. On 6.1.2012, he was carrying cash of ` 15,02,530/- of the saidconcern to Patiala for purchase of a property. Since the deal could not befinalized, the cash was being brought back by the petitioner. During thecourse of checking at Mansa Kanchian in connection with State LegislativeAssembly Elections, 2012, the petitioner being found with cash in excess of` 2.5 lakhs, the matter was referred to the Investigation Wing of the Income CWP-7536-2019 cash was requisitioned and seized as per the provisions of Section 132/132Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Vide intimation ofseizure dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was informedregarding impounding cash of ` 15,02,530/-. The seized cash was depositedinto the PD account of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Ludhiana. The petitioner filed his return on 20.12.2012 declaring totalincome at ` 2,04,330/-. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment videorder dated 21.1.2014 (Annexure P-2) by making an addition of ` 50,000/-.A demand of ` 5,440/- was raised which was paid by the petitioner on19.2.2014. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order, Annexure P-2,before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated27.8.2014 (Annexure P-3) reduced the addition of ` 50,000/- to ` 35,000/-.Against the said order, no appeal was filed by either of the parties.Respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed underSection 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order and remanded thematter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh. Againstthe order, Annexure P-4, the petitioner filed an appeal before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). TheTribunal vide order dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P-5) allowed the appealagainst which no further appeal was filed by any of the parties. Thepetitioner vide application, Annexure P-5/A, requested the respondents toreturn the seized amount. Vide letter dated 4.7.2017 (Annexure P-6), thepetitioner received a cheque of ` 15,02,530/-. Thereafter, the petitioner senta letter, Annexure P-7, to respondent No.3 for interest on the seized cashamount of ` 15,02,530/- for the period from 6.1.2012 to 4.7.2017, but noGURBACHAN SINGH2019.03.20 16:27response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the reliefclaimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter, Annexure P-7, torespondent No.3, but no action has so far been taken thereon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the reliefclaimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter, Annexure P-7, torespondent No.3, but no action has so far been taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing thepresent petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to takea decision on the letter, Annexure P-7, in accordance with law by passing aspeaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of thecertified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case, the petitioneris found entitled to the payment of interest, the same be released to himwithin next one month, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 19, 2019(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)gbsJUDGE Whether Speaking/ReasonedYes/NoWhether ReportableYes/No