TEJ BAHADUR DUBE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction or order (i) declaring the seizure of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 on 30/11/1981 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Circle II, Hyderabad, from the State Bank of India, Chandulal Baradari Branch, Hyderabad, under s.132(1) of the Income-tax Act as illegal and with out jurisdiction,(ii) direct bearer Bonds, 1991 and to deliver the same to the petitioner, and (iii) for further declaring that, in any event, the State Bank of India, Chandulal Baradari Branch, Hyderabad, is bound to invest the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in the purchase of Special Bearer Bonds and is accountable to the petitioner accordingly.

(2.) We may notice, in brief, the facts averred by the petitioner which are necessary for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner is partner of a partnership firm carrying on business under thank and style of "Pandit Debi Prayag Dutt" with its head office at Calcutta and branches at several places in India. The petitioners in charge of the business carried on the said firm thoughts Hyderabad Branch. The petitioner firm is an assessee at calcutta. On 30/11/1981, under an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax AndraPradesh II, under s.132(1) of the I.T. Act,1961(hereinafter referrede to as "the Act"), the officers of the Income-tax Department entered the premises of the State Bank of India. Baradari Branch, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), with a warrant of search. The authorised officers inspected the safe room of the Bank and found a sealed brown paper packed with a white label pasted thereon with the following note "safe deposit article deposited by P.S. Prasad (branch manager, State bank of India, chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad, House No.56, State Bank of India Staff Colony, New Bakaram, Hyderabad". During the course of the search, the authorised officer elicited from Sri P. S. Prasad, Manager of the Bank that that packet containing Rs. 10,00,000 was left by the petitioner with the bank on 25/11/1981 at 11 a.m. for the specific purpose of utilising the said amount for the purchase of Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, on 1/12/1981, Mr. rasadis also alleged to have stated that the petitioner had informed him that he was leaving Hyderabad that day and was not likely to return before 1/12/1981, and, hence as soon as the sale of bearer bonds was commenced by the State Bank of India, he should purchase the same. The tax officers prepared the necessary panchnama and seized the said packet containing Rs. 10,00,000. They also required the bank to issue a demand draft for Rs. 10,00,000 and, accordingly, two demand draft dated 30/11/1981, for an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,00,000 were issued by the bank to the officers. Petitioner also avers that Sri P.S. Prasad obtained a safe deposit receipt No. 8/1, dated 25/11/1981, which showed that one packet sealed with his personal seal had been received for safe custody by the 2nd respondent bank and that the said amount did not belong to him but belonged to the petitioner. The keys of the safe room were in custody of two officers of the bank, i.e., the Accountant, M.A Quader, and the Head cashier, Sudhir.

(3.) It is stated that the petitioner was away in Hardoi in U.P attending the marriage of his nephew and on receiving the above information, contacted Dr. Sudhir Bhattacharjee, Chartered Accountant, Calcutta, on 8/12/1981. His chartered accountant gathered the above facts and contacted the tax authorities on behalf of the petitioner. They confirmed the seizure of the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000 and also informed him that the mandatory enquiry under s. 132(5) of the Act would be conducted by the ITO having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner, the said officer being the ITO District IV(3), A-ward, Calcutta, the 4th respondent herein Although the petitioners chartered accountant had stated that the petitioner had no objection to appear before the authorised officer to give his statement as required by him he was later informed that it was not necessary and that be would be informed later about the future course of action. This action of the respondents in seizing the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000 from the 2nd respondent-bank is challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction.