Assistant Director of Income-tax v. Government of NCT of Delhi
[Citation -2015-LL-0304-112]

Citation 2015-LL-0304-112
Appellant Name Assistant Director of Income-tax
Respondent Name Government of NCT of Delhi
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/03/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unaccounted income • undisclosed income • revision petition • cash recovery
Bot Summary: 3290/2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, the delay is condoned. Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge the correctness of an order dated 06.06.2014 of learned CMM, New Delhi by which cash recovered in FIR No.39/2014 PS Lajpat Nagar was declined to be given to the petitioner. Proceedings under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act have been initiated against Rajesh Kalra and Rahul Ahuja. The cash recovered has since been deposited in the Government Treasury vide order dated 26.04.2014. It has yet not been ascertained if Rajesh Kalra and Rahul Ahuja facing CRL.REV.P. 133/2015 page 2 of 3 enquiry before the petitioner are actual owner of the cash recovered. The Trial Court has already given liberty to the petitioner to proceed with the enquiry and to levy penalties under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Rules and may ask for release of the amount for payment of the said penalties. The revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 133/2015 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Petitioner Through : Mr.Rohit Madan, Advocate with Mr.Akash Vajpai, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ORDER 04.03.2015 CRL.M.A.No.3291/2015 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A.No.3290/2015 (Delay) For reasons mentioned in application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition, delay is condoned. application for condonation of delay is disposed of. 1. Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge correctness of order dated 06.06.2014 of learned CMM, New Delhi by which cash recovered in FIR No.39/2014 PS Lajpat Nagar (SC) was declined to be given to petitioner. CRL.REV.P. 133/2015 page 1 of 3 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. He urged that amount seized in this FIR requires to be handed over to petitioner under Section 132 of Income Tax Act. Proceedings under Section 131 (1A) of Income Tax Act have been initiated against Rajesh Kalra and Rahul Ahuja. In their statements recorded on 28.04.2014, on oath, they have admitted that cash `2,50,00,000/- and `3,01,42,000/- robbed was their unaccounted income earned from out of books sale and purchase transaction of fabrics in open market. This undisclosed income is liable to be assessed as their income. 3. Admitted position is that dacoity took place on 28.01.2014 in area of PS Lajpat Nagar and complainant ? Rakesh Kumar lodged instant FIR. robbed amount was disclosed to be7,70,42,000/- and as per complainant, said amount belonged to Rahul Ahuja and Rajesh Kalra. Subsequently, they changed their stand and stated that looted amount was `5,51,42,000/-. Cash `4,78,08,351/- has been recovered from various accused persons. Applications moved by Rahul Ahuja and Rajesh Kalra for release of recovered cash on superdari were declined by impugned order. 4. matter is still pending. It is unclear if charge-sheet has been submitted in Court. cash recovered has since been deposited in Government Treasury vide order dated 26.04.2014. It is still case property and, at this stage, cannot be released to petitioner to recover any penalty which is yet to be ascertained. Moreover, it has yet not been ascertained if Rajesh Kalra and Rahul Ahuja facing CRL.REV.P. 133/2015 page 2 of 3 enquiry before petitioner are actual owner of cash recovered. Trial Court has already given liberty to petitioner to proceed with enquiry and to levy penalties (if any) under relevant provisions of Income Tax Rules and may ask for release of amount for payment of said penalties. 5. In light of above discussion, I find no illegality or irregularity in impugned order. revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. S.P.GARG, J MARCH 04, 2015 / tr Assistant Director of Income-tax v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Report Error