1979-VIL-58-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1980] 123 ITR 435 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

Date: 24.07.1979

K CHOYI

Vs

SYED ABDULLA BAFAKKY THANGAL AND OTHERS

BENCH

Judge(s)  : P. N. SHINGHAL., R. S. SARKARIA. and O. CHINNAPPA REDDY.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY J.---On December 24, 1970, at about 1 a.m. Beevan, second respondent herein, was walking along the road in Calicut town when the police stopped him on suspicion, searched him and found, in a bag which he was carrying, a sum of rupees one lakh in currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination. He was arrested under ss. 54 and 550 of the Cr. PC and produced before the Sub-Magistrate I, Kozhikode. The Magistrate remanded him to custody. The police reported to the Magistrate that at the time of arrest Beevan had stated that the money belonged to one Ahammad Thangal and that he was carrying the money to be paid to one Koyappa of Puthupady. On December 28, 1970, Beevan filed a petition requesting the court to pay the money to Syed Abdulla Bafakei Thangal, first respondent herein, stating that the money belonged to him. Syed Abdulla Bafakei Thangal also filed a similar petition (C.M.P. No. 65/70). On November 20, 1971, the police submitted a final report referring the case as one of mistake of fact and stating that their investigation revealed that the money seized from Beevan belonged to Syed Abdulla Bafakei Thangal and that Beevan had committed no offence. In the meanwhile the ITO, Assessment IV, Calicut, the appellant herein, filed C.M.P. No. 1/71 before the Sub-Magistrate praying that the amount seized from Beevan may be paid to him under s. 132 of the I.T. Act as it represented wholly or partly property or income which had not been disclosed for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Later, Beevan was assessed to pay income-tax of Rs. 58,501 and a penalty of Rs. 42,900 and the ITO (Recovery), Calicut, filed C.M.P.No. 54/71 before the Sub-Magistrate, apparently under s. 226(4) of the I.T. Act, praying that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 seized from Beevan may be paid to him.

The learned Magistrate, on the scant material available to him, found that the amount seized from Beevan belonged to Syed Abdulla Bafakei Thangal. He rejected C.M.P. Nos. 1 and 54 of 1971 and allowed C.M.P. No. 65 of 1970. The ITO, Assessment IV, Calicut, and the ITO (Recovery), filed Criminal Revision Petitions 1/1972 and 2/1972 respectively in the court of the District Magistrate, Calicut. The learned District Magistrate confirmed the order of the Sub-Magistrate and dismissed the criminal revision petitions. The ITO, Assessment IV, Calicut, filed a further criminal revision petition in the High Court against the order of the District Magistrate in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1 of 1972. But the ITO (Recovery) did not file any further criminal revision petition. He allowed the order of District Magistrate affirming the order of the Sub-Magistrate rejecting his application under s. 226(4) of the I.T. Act to become final. The High Court dismissed the ITO, Assessment IV's criminal revision petition, on the ground that s. 132(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act had no application to the facts of the case as the currency notes produced in court were not " those seized by the officer or which he was empowered to seize ". The ITO, Assessment IV, Calicut, has preferred this appeal, having obtained special leave from this court.

Shri Lalit and Shri Datar, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that s. 132 of the I.T. Act was applicable to assets in the custody of the court also and that the ITO, who may not physically seize the assets, may achieve the result by requesting the court to deliver the assets to him. We do not think it necessary to consider this question in the situation that has arisen on the facts of the case. There can be no question of making a seizure under s. 132 of the I.T. Act and proceeding further under the provisions of that section, once an assessment is completed. Seizure under s. 132 relates to a pre-assessment stage. If an assessment is completed before the seizure is effected and while the assets are still in the custody of the court, the appropriate remedy for the revenue is to make an application under s. 226(4) of the I.T. Act. That was what was done in the present case too. The earlier petition by the ITO, Assessment IV, praying that the money may be paid to him under s. 132 must be considered to have become infructuous as a result of subsequent events. Now, as already mentioned by us, the order of the District Magistrate confirming that of the Sub-Magistrate rejecting the application under s. 226(4) was allowed to become final by the ITO (Recovery). We, have, therefore, no option but to reject the present appeal. We may add that on the material placed before him the learned Sub-Magistrate was justified in holding that the money belonged to Syed Abdulla Bafakei Thangal and not to Beevan.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.