News Update

Govt hikes retirement age of Ayush doctors & civilian docs of Armed Forces to 65Govt hikes retirement age of Ayush doctors & civilian docs of Armed Forces to 65Defence Accounts Service officer Ms Swaranashree Rao appointed as Spokesperson for Ministry of DefenceDirect tax collections peak at Rs 6.9 lakh cr after refund of Rs 1.2 lakh crPadmavat film maker moves Apex Court against ban by some StatesGovt decides to reduce quantum of borrowing from Rs 50K Crore to only Rs 20K Crore after review of revenue collections trendA nuanced approach to Works Contract under GST (See 'TOG Insight' in Taxongo.com)I-T - When court finds that assessee has not truly disclosed all facts in case & now wants to withdraw soiled petition, liberty to file fresh petition can only be granted if Revenue is compensated for suffering costs on account of assessee's mistake - YES: HCGovt to strike off fresh lot of 1.2 lakh shell companies from RoC RegisterGST Council to rationalise tax rates on many goods & Services tomorrowCX - Outdoor Catering Services is a necessity but once said service is excluded, the use of such service, whether statutorily required or otherwise, does not render the services eligible for CENVAT: CESTATI-T - When agreement is all about purchase of developed residential sites, merely because developer had to construct some common facilities before the handover, it would amount to 'works contract' - NO: ITATCII demands C Form be continued till Petroleum & Natural Gas brought under GSTCentral Advisory Board favours online education & more autonomy for quality institutesHelpdesk should respond on time and give correct guidanceCacophony against amending Constitution is Music for the IgnorantFirst course on Sustainable Urban Planning launchedScience & technology to be harnessed for preservation of environment: Dr Harsh VardhanMilk production registers 20% growthSteel Industry seeks removal of Customs duty on raw materialsFake encounter - SC asks SIT to wrap up probe in 12 FIRs by Feb-endHaryana also bans release of ‘Padmavat’I-T - When doings of assessee are not found to be not above board, it does not deserve invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of HC under Art 226: HCPublic art should be part of urban planning: PuriGSTN technical glitches to be reviewed by Sushil Modi-headed Committee tomorrowCX - Without canteen, factory would not be allowed to operate under Factories Act, 1948 - Outdoor catering services, not primarily for personal use or consumption of employee, is covered under definition of Input service: CESTATCENVAT - Services of merger has no relation with manufacture - Even if order goes beyond the SCN, same is not an error of a kind which can be rectified by a ROM application: CESTAT
 
I-T - Sec 226 does not empower Revenue to seize money or properties of assessee or judgment debtors, which belong to others and were obtained by fraud: HC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, NOV 14, 2016: THE issue is - Where Section 226 empowers the Revenue to seize the money or properties of the assessee or judgment debtors, which belongs to others and was obtained by fraud. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The Assessee-partnership firm, a flagship concern of the SGI Group, was accepting deposit from the public and offering return on the deposits. The group had claimed that they had the expertise in stock and commodity market and the deposits collected were used by the group for trading in equity and commodity market, speculative business, FDR and investment in real estate. The deposits were collected from the investors through agents and those Investors /agents were allowed to refer and introduced any other person to be an investor/agent in the firm under their downline as they would receive referral commission on the investment of the said new referred person. One of the investors of the Assessee filed a suit for recovery against the Assessee contending that he had been defrauded by the Assessee and a money decree of Rs 1.60 crore was passed by the Court. The Court also directed the banker of the Assessee for not to release any payment from the bank account to any party without taking leave of the Court.

In the meantime a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department at various residential and office premise of the Assessee and a number of incriminating documents including the cash of Rs 34,69,00,000/- was seized. The block assessment of the Assessee pursuant to search operation and in terms of the post search enquiry had been completed and the demand had been raised on them for a total sum of Rs.345,97,46,125/-. Accordingly, the bank accounts of the Assessee was attached u/s 226 of the Act. Now, the department in instant application prayed for a direction to release the sum to it as the amount belonging to the Assessee deposited by it in the bank account had been freezed for meeting the tax liability arising against it.

On application, the High Court held that,

++ section 293 of the Income Tax Act perhaps has no applicability in the present proceedings. It bars the filing of the suit in a civil court to set aside or modify any proceedings taken and / or made under the Income Tax Act. The Decree Holder has not filed any suit in any civil court against the Revenue authorities challenging any proceedings taken this Act. The Decree Holder rather had filed a civil suit for recovery of his own money of Rs.1,60,00,000/- with pendetelite and further interest based on two post dated cheques issued by the Judgment Debtors. The suit was filed by the decree holder on the premise that the Judgment Debtors had cheated the Decree Holder and had committed fraud upon him;

++ the department of course can seize the money/properties which belongs to the assessee/the judgment debtors but of none other. Now in this case the decree holder has alleged his money being Rs 1,60,00,000/- was received by the judgment debtors by cheating him and the said money belong to the decree holder and need to be returned by the judgment debtors. It is argued the such money of decree holder is held by the judgment debtors in trust and the decree holder has a proprietary interest in the amount so seized to the extent of his decree. If the money was transferred in pursuance of a contract induced by fraud or mistake, as proved by the decree holder and so noted in judgment, the judgment debtor on receiving the notice of rescission ought to have held the money in trust for the benefit of the decree holder;

++ under Section 226 Rule 4 the AO may apply to the Court in whose custody there is money belonging to the assessee for payment to it of the entire amount of such money or if it is more than the tax amount, an amount sufficient to discharge the tax. The section rather clarifies the money which belong to the assessee shall only be available for payment as tax to the Income Tax Department, but what if money found in possession of the assessee does not belong to him or he is holding such money in trust/constructive or otherwise. To my mind such money can't be adjusted against tax liability of the assessee. The plea of revenue that the decree holder ought to have applied u/s 132(11) is also not sustainable. Section 132(11) stands omitted by the Finance Act of 2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and hence decree holder could not have availed of such provision in any case. The plea of the Income Tax Department that it being a secured creditor, would not be of any benefit to the Revenue in view of the fact the money seized to the extent of decree does not belong to assessee being obtained by fraud. The assessee though was in possession of it but at best can said to have held it only in constructive trust.

(See 2017-TIOL-2399-HC-DEL-IT)

 

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS