JIWAN KUMAR Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 12.6.2019 whereby interest on the seized amount has been restricted till the date of assessment. Further prayer is for direction to the respondents to pay interest on the seized amount for the period from 21.1.2014 to 4.7.2017.

(2.) The facts are that cash of Rs. 15,02,530/- was seized by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department from the petitioner on 6.1.2012, while he was travelling from Patiala to Mansa. The cash was impounded vide intimation dated 12.1.2012. The petitioner filed return declaring total income of Rs. 2,04,330/-. The assessment for the year 2012-13 was framed vide order dated 21.1.2014 whereby addition of Rs. 50,000/- was made. Aggrieved of the assessment order, an appeal was filed and addition of Rs. 50,000/- was reduced to Rs. 35,000/- by the 1st Appellate Authority, the appeal was partly allowed on 27.8.2014. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') were undertaken and the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and examining the evidence. An appeal was preferred against the revisional order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on 26.8.2016 allowed the appeal and order of revision was quashed. The order of the Tribunal was accepted by the revenue. Inspite of various requests, the amount seized was refunded to the petitioner only on 4.7.2017. As the amount was kept For almost 5 years, the petitioner approached the respondents for grant of interest. When no action was taken, CWP No. 7536 of 2019 was filed, the petition was disposed of on 19.3.2019 directing the respondents to pass a speaking order. The application was considered, order dated 12.6.2019 was passed under Section 132B(4) of the Act and interest for the period from 5.5.2012 to 21.1.2014 amounting to Rs. 1,57,765/- was paid after 21.1.2014.

(3.) The issue involved in narrow circumference is that there was no demand against the petitioner justifying retention of the seized amount, yet no interest was paid.