MAHESHBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL Vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission ['the Settlement Commission' for short] terminating the petitioner's application for settlement on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 245D(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short].

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that, search operations were carried out concerning the petitioner between 15.09.1993 and 20.10.1993. Besides other valuable articles, things and documents, a cash of Rs. 10,000/- was sized from the premises of the petitioner and Rs. 1,50,000/- was recovered from the premises of the neighbour of the petitioner, one Vikram Pandya. On 10.01.1994, the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, and conveyed that, a total of Rs. 1,60,000/- seized during search operation is covered under disclosure statement made by the petitioner in terms of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He requested the Assistant Commissioner to adjust the cash seized against the tax liability in his case as well as in cases of AOPs in which he has interest. In fact, he urged that since the cash seized during the course of search is requested to be applied against the taxes, the order for retention of such cash under Section 132(5) of the Act need not be passed as the title of the cash would vest in the department. He stated as under:

(3.) The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 17.01.1994 in terms of Section 132(5) of the Act, in which, with respect to the seized cash of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively, he provided as under: