BANSAL COMMODITIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed on March 1, 1990, by the CIT, Delhi IX, as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 49,03,000 is not being paid to the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the premises of one Shri R. K. Aggarwal were searched pursuant to an authorisation issued under S. 132 of the IT Act. Simultaneously a search was also conducted in the premises of his business concerns. At that time, it transpired that there were pay orders dt. April 25, 1989, which were issued by one Shri Surrinder Kumar totalling Rs. 50,40,000. These pay orders were issued to Hindustan Copper Ltd. The Deputy CIT passed an order under the second proviso to S. 132(1) effecting a deemed seizure of these pay orders. Intimation was also sent to the Manager, Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, orders under S. 132(5) were passed by the Department against R. K. Aggarwal and also Surrinder Kumar. At that time, R. K. Aggarwal stated that Surrinder Kumar was only a name -lender and in fact the said pay orders had been issued on his own behalf.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the CIT had no power to review and reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. K. L. Bhatt's (1990) 84 CTR (Del) 152: (1990) 182 ITR 361 (Del). It is also submitted that the second proviso to S. 132(1) did not permit such a seizure and the seizure itself was bad in law.