Wp(C)/24783/2016 Of Mohammed Niaz v. The Income Tax Officer (Inv)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 24783 of 2016 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:-------------------- MOHAMMED NIAZ, ZEREENE, EDAPPALLY P.O., RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEAR AL AMEEN SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 24. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT :------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INV), 3RD FLOOR, ARYA BHANGI PINNACLE BUILDING, SA ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI. PIN-682 020 BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR. COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT (COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER AND LIST OF SEIZED ITEMS) DATED 28/01/2016 TO THE PETITIONER AND LIST OF SEIZED ITEMS) DATED 28/01/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 131 A DATED 08/02/2016 SECTION 131 A DATED 08/02/2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT DATED 9/2/2016OF THE IT ACT DATED 9/2/2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER OATH UNDER SECTION 132(4) DATED 15/02/2016SECTION 132(4) DATED 15/02/2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT HE IS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT DATED 17/12/2015, 04/02/2016, 25/05/2016, 02/06/2016 & 25/06/2016 HE IS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT DATED 17/12/2015, 04/02/2016, 25/05/2016, 02/06/2016 & 25/06/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. --------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 24783 of 2016 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for adirection to release an excess amount of Rs.1,51,29,850/-retained by the respondent for consequential reliefs. Thepetitioner submits that a search was conducted by the IncomeTax Department in the room booked in the name of thepetitioner at Mariott Hotel, Edappally and Rs.1.89 crores wereseized. The Income Tax Department had taken steps forfinalizing the assessment. According to the petitioner, if at allthere is a liability to pay interest and penalty, it would onlycome to Rs.37,70,150/- and therefore excess amount has tobe refunded. According to the petitioner, he is suffering fromsevere disease and is hospitalized. He is badly in requirementof funds for his treatment and therefore he has approachedthis Court. 2. A statement is filed by the Standing Counsel inter aliastating that the assessee had accepted the ownership ofRs.1.89 crores which was seized by the Department.According to him, the money was for the purpose of aproposed land sale agreement. According to the Department, 2. A statement is filed by the Standing Counsel inter aliastating that the assessee had accepted the ownership ofRs.1.89 crores which was seized by the Department.According to him, the money was for the purpose of aproposed land sale agreement. According to the Department, the assessee's explanation was not found to be satisfactory andthe Department is not convinced about the source of money.It is further submitted that the proceedings against theassessee cannot be finalized at this stage. The case has to becentralized to the Central Circle, Kochi for assessment. Further,the Assessing Officer has to initiate assessment under Section147 against Shri. Mohammed Niaz and Shri. Mahmood K.U. andthey had not filed any return of income until 30.03.2016. It isstated that the assessee will have to wait until the completionof the assessment proceedings and to finalize the same.Hence, according to the Department, petitioner is not entitledfor the reliefs sought for. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid submission of therespondent, I do not think that a time bound direction can beissued in this matter, nor can this Court decide on theentitlement of the petitioner for the amount as claimed.Suffice it to say that the only direction that can be issued is tothe respondent to complete the proceedings as expeditiously aspossible. With the above observation, this writ petition is closed. A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE