Prabhleen Singh Paintal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji & Anr

Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAWRIT PETITION NO.398 OF 2021 PRABHLEEN SINGH PAINTAL Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI & ANR. … Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Vishnu Langawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Ms. Amira Razaq, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. CORAM: M. S. SONAK &R. N. LADDHA,JJ DATE : 6[th] April 2022 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Vishnu Langawat, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. Razaq, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2.The petitioner, by instituting this petition, had sought for thefollowing reliefs:- “(a) Pass a direction under the writ of mandamus directingthe Respondent to submit detailed reports so as to illustratethe whereabouts of the seized cash from the date of seizureof the cash till the present date; and/or (b) Pass a direction under the writ of mandamus directingthe Respondent to credit the seized cash of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) along with interest at 18% p.a. From the date of seizure (24.07.2007) till realization infavour of the petitioner.” 3.In the context of relief in terms of prayer clause (a) above,Mr. M. Raviteja, Deputy Director of Income Tax in the office of thePrincipal Director of Income Tax at Panaji has filed an affidavit andhas stated the following at paras 8 and 9. “8. I say that the records show that the seized amount ofRs.25,00,000/- was deposited by the Authorised Officersimmediately after the search on 25[th] July, 2007 in PunjabNational Bank, Panaji – Branch to the credit of the PersonalDeposit Account No.1502002100022157 of the Director ofIncome Tax (investigation) 1- New Delhi, in accordancewith law. 9. I say that on 25[th] July, 2007, the Panchanama wasprepared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv),Panaji.” 4.Mr. Langawat, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees thatsince the whereabouts of the seized cash is disclosed, the relief in termsof prayer clause (a) stands worked out. 5.In so far as the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is concerned,we agree with Ms. Razaq that this is a matter which the petitioner willhave to pursue before the Authorities/Courts where the amountpresently stands deposited. In the return filed before us, it is clearlystated that the petitioner now assessed to tax in Goa since thepetitioner was assessable to tax in New Delhi at the relevant time. 6.Mr. Langawat however, states that liberty may be granted to thepetitioner to make representation to the competent authority at NewDelhi concerning the prayer clause (b) above. At this stage, there is noquestion of grant of any liberty because at no stage this Court hasprevented the petitioner from approaching the competent authority. Ifthe petitioner has any rights for seeking release of such amount merelyby making representation, the petitioner is free to avail of such rights. 7.The petitioner is also at liberty to take out appropriateproceedings before the appropriate authority concerning the prayerclause (b). 8.With the aforesaid clarification and the liberties, the petition isdisposed of. There shall be no order for costs. R. N. LADDHA,J M. S. SONAK, J TARI AMRUT NAGESHDigitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2022.04.06 18:36:54 +05'30'