AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.
The writ petition in WP No. 1425 of 1999 is filed against the order passed by the CIT Central-1, Chennai-34, dt. 18th Nov., 1998, and the
prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order and to direct the CIT to redeposit a sum of Rs. 24,25,810 in the P.D. Account of the
respondent to the credit of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95.
The writ petition in WP No. 1424 of 1999 is filed against the order of the CIT, Central-1, Chennai-34, dt. 12th Jan., 1999, in C. No. Act
No.0022/KVS&C.1, and the prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order and to direct the CIT to admit and accept the declaration filed
by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
The result of the WP No. 1424 of 1999 would depend upon the result of the WP No. 1425 of 1999. The facts leading to the filing of the writ
petitions are as under :
The assessment of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95 was completed by the AO viz., the ITO Film Ward H, Chennai, by his order dt. 29th
March, 1996, as the said officer was having jurisdiction over the petitioner at that time. The order of assessment made on the petitioner resulted in
a tax liability of Rs. 29,21,282 and consequential interest. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of assessment before the
CIT(A) and the CIT(A) by order dt. 20th Dec., 1996, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. After the dismissal of appeal by the
CIT(A), the petitioner filed an application dt. 29th Jan., 1997, before the CIT, Tamil Nadu IV who was having jurisdiction over the petitioner on
that date for stay of collection of tax and that petition was rejected by the CIT, Tamil Nadu IV on 6th Feb., 1997. The CIT, Tamil Nadu IV while
dismissing the stay petition on 6th Feb., 1997, observed that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the CIT(A) was dismissed and the
petitioner was directed to clear the arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95 immediately. The CIT also directed the petitioner to obtain necessary
challan from the AO for the payment of the tax. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and also filed a petition
for stay of collection of tax before the Tribunal, Chennai, on 11th April, 1997, and the said petition for stay came up for hearing before the
Tribunal on 9th May, 1997, and the Departmental Representative opposed the stay petition and on hearing both the sides, the Tribunal dismissed
the petition for stay on 9th May, 1997.
In the meanwhile, there was a search conducted in the office and residential premises of the petitioner at Chennai and Ernakulam, on 20th Jan.,
1997, and according to the respondents, cash, jewellery and other documents were seized and the cash seized in the residential and business
premises of the petitioner at Chennai, was deposited in the P.D. account of the CIT, Tamil Nadu IV, Chennai, while the cash seized in the
residential and business premises of the petitioner at Ernakulam was originally deposited in the P.D. account of the concerned CIT and later
transferred to the P.D. account of the CIT, Tamil Nadu IV, Chennai. The cash seized was considerably in excess of the arrears of tax due for the
asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95. According to the respondents, a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 being the amount required for clearing the arrears for the
two asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 was realised on 17th Feb., 1997, from the amount of Rs. 47,66,335 seized and deposited in the P.D.
account of the CIT Tamil Nadu IV, Chennai, and the same was adjusted towards the arrears for the said two assessment years on 20th Feb.,
1997. According to the respondents, after the said adjustment made on 20th Feb., 1997, there was no arrears of the tax due for the two asst. yrs.
1993-94 and 1994-95.
The petitioner before any such adjustment could be made sent a letter on 29th Jan., 1997, to the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Investigation,
Chennai, with a request that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs lying in his bank account may be appropriated towards ad hoc payment of tax liability that may
arise out of the action under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter to be referred to as ""the Act) both at Chennai and Ernakulam. The petitioner
also sought for a direction to lift the order of attachment. As already stated, the CIT, the authorised representative of the Department, the Tribunal
and also the petitioner proceeded on the basis that there were arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95.
The petitioner filed a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS), for the asst, yr. 1994-95 and his petition was
rejected on the ground that there were no arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95. The first respondent, the CIT, Central-1 issued a letter stating
that his petition dt. 21st Oct., 1998, seeking adjustment of a part of the seized cash towards the tax payable for the block assessment has no
merits in view of the fact that a sum of Rs. 24,25,810 had already been adjusted towards the arrears of tax for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-
95 by the then AO and the appropriation had taken place in February, 1997, before the petitioner''s case was notified to the Central Circle. On
19th Nov., 1997, the petitioner was directed to file his return for the block assessment period under s. 158BC of the Act. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed a return on 5th Jan., 1998, and the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle IR, Chennai, by letter dt. 20th July, 1998, informed the petitioner that
the tax payable on the disclosed income was not paid. He also gave the details of the balance of the tax payable on the income admitted after
adjustment of the seized cash and the amount realised by invoking bank guarantee. Along with the said letter, the Asstt. CIT has also enclosed
challans indicating adjustment of P.D. account cheque for a sum of Rs. 23,40,525.03 (adjustment of the seized cash) and a sum of Rs. 9,50,000
(amount realised by invoking bank guarantee).
After the said letter issued by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle 1(5), Chennai, the petitioner preferred an application before the CIT, Central-1,
Chennai, stating that there are arrears of tax for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the petitioner intends to avail the WS,, pending disposal
of the appeal for the asst. yr.1994-95. The petitioner, in the said application also stated that he has already requested that the cash seized and the
amount appropriated from various banks to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs may be appropriated towards ad hoc payment of tax liability that may arise
out of the proceedings under S. 132 of the Act. The petitioner has also requested the CIT to issue suitable directions to give credit to the tax paid
by him for the block assessment and the same should be treated as tax paid for the block assessment only not for any other tax arrears. That
petition was rejected and that is the subject-matter of the writ petition WP1425 of 1999.
The petitioner filed a declaration under KVSS on 16th Nov.,1998, and when the Central-I, found that there were no arrears of tax for the asst.
yr. 1994-95, he rejected the declaration and the order of the CIT, Central-I, is the subject-matter of the writ petition, WP 1424 of 1999.
The grounds raised in the writ petitions are that it is not open to the CIT to adjust a sum of Rs. 24,25,810 against the tax arrears for the asst. yr.
1994-95 as the cash seized has to be adjusted towards the tax liability that may arise out of the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Act
which is a special provision for assessment of search cases. It is also stated that the adjustment has been made without giving any prior opportunity
or notice to the petitioner and hence the adjustment is illegal. It is also stated that the petitioner, CIT, the Department personnel and the Tribunal
have proceeded on the basis that the amounts have not been adjusted which is clear from the orders passed by the CIT as well as the Tribunal and
the stand taken by the petitioner as well as by the Department before the authorities. It is, therefore, stated that the adjustment of a sum of Rs,
24,25,810 towards arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95 is illegal. It is also stated that once the adjustment is held to be illegal, the order
rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the KVSS is also liable to be set aside.
A common counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the adjustment of the seized amount against arrears of tax is valid
and justified under the provisions of s. 158BC(b) r/w s. 132B(1) of the Act which specifically permits for adjustment of the cash seized towards
wasting tax liability. It is, therefore, stated that the adjustment of a part of the seized cash towards tax arrears for the asst. yr. 1994-95 is valid and
justified and since the adjustment was made on 20th Feb., 1997, there were no tax arrears for the asst. yr. 1994-95 on the date of filing of the
declaration and hence, since one of the conditions for invoking WSS was not satisfied, it is stated that the order of rejection of the declaration
under WSS is perfectly justified and it cannot be regarded as in any way wrong or illegal. The order challenged in the other writ petition WP No.
1424 of 1999 is sought to be supported on the ground that there were no arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95 in view of the adjustment made
long before the case of the petitioner was transferred to the jurisdiction of the respondents and the averments of mala fide raised in the writ
petitions are suitably denied.
Mr. V. Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appropriation of a sum of Rs. 25,24,810 towards arrears of tax for
the asst. yr. 1994-95 made in the year 1997 without the consent of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Act and it is not open to the
respondents to unilaterally adjust the said sum kept in P.D. account towards the arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Learned counsel
submitted that under the provisions of s. 158BC of the Act, the respondents have the power to adjust the cash seized only towards the liability of
tax that may arise out of block assessment and the adjustment made by the respondents against the tax liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95 without
the knowledge and consent of the petitioner is illegal, He further submitted that the block assessment proceedings initiated were pending on the
date of filing of the declaration and the assessment came to be completed only in January, 1999, and it is not open to the respondents to adjust the
seized cash towards the arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Learned counsel further submitted that once the Court holds that the adjustment is
not permissible under the provisions of the Act, the order rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under WSS is also liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel submitted that the various orders passed by the CIT as well as the Tribunal on the petitions for stay filed by the petitioner and the
stand taken by the Department show that they were of the opinion that the seized cash was not adjusted towards the tax arrears for the asst. yr.
1994-95. Learned counsel submitted that though there was a letter by the Asstt. CIT dt. 20th July, 1998, he did not inform that the adjustment of
the seized cash of a sum for Rs. 23,40,525 was made towards the tax arrears for the asst. yr. 1994-95 and as soon as the petitioner became
aware of the said illegal adjustment, he approached the CIT, Central-I, by filing a petition dt. 21st Oct., 1998. He also submitted that the
procedure prescribed for adjustment of any amount for P. D. account by issuing a challan after informing the petitioner was not followed in
adjusting the seized cash towards the arrears of tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95 and without any notice or without the knowledge of the petitioner, the
seized amount was adjusted towards the tax liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95. He submitted that the said adjustment is illegal in view of the
provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
Mr. S.V. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the Department submitted that the adjustment was made in accordance with the provisions
of s. 158BC r/w s. 132B of the Act and the adjustment is valid and proper. Learned senior counsel submitted that the amount seized can be
adjusted towards the existing liability and since there was a valid and legal adjustment under the provisions of s. 132B r/w s. 158BC of the Act, it
is not open to the petitioner to make a complaint and contend that the adjustment was illegal. Learned senior counsel submitted that no prior
opportunity need be given to the petitioner regarding the adjustment of the seized cash as the petitioner had not taken any action after he was
informed by the Asstt. CIT about the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 23,40,525. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is only when the
declaration filed by the petitioner under KVSS was rejected by the CIT, the petitioner has approached this Court and learned senior counsel also
submitted that on the basis of the provisions under s. 132B r/w s. 158BC of the Act, the adjustment of seized amount can be made against existing
liability and it is not necessary that block assessment should be made before the adjustment towards wasting liability can be made. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the intention of the legislature is clear that the amount seized can be adjusted towards the wasting liability under the
provisions of s. 132B of the Act and the adjustment is not in anyway illegal or incorrect on the date when the adjustment was made,
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that any decision to be rendered in WP No.
1425 of 1999 would govern the other writ petition WP No.1424 of 1999. The facts are not in dispute that the order of assessment for the asst. yr.
1994-95 was made on 29th March, 1996, and the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 29,21,282 towards the balance of tax payable and
interest also. An appeal against the order of assessment was filed by the petitioner before the CIT(A) which went against him and the further
appeal preferred by him before the Tribunal was pending on the date when the WS came into force. There is also no dispute that certain amount of
cash and other assets were seized during the search operation conducted in the residence and business premises of the petitioner and at the request
of the petitioner some amounts were paid by the banker of the petitioner to the IT Department by way of bankers'' pay order on 31st Jan., 1997.
The petitioner also issued a letter on 29th Jan., 1997, stating that the amount transferred from the Indian Bank, Rangaralapuram branch, Chennai,
may be adjusted towards ad hoc payment of tax liability that may arise on the action under s. 132 of the Act both at Madras and Ernakulam. It is
not disputed that a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 was adjusted towards arrears of tax for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 without giving any prior
opportunity to the petitioner or without even informing him.
The question that arises is whether the action of the Department is valid and legal. In considering the question, it is necessary to notice relevant
provisions of the Act. Chapter XIV-B of the Act is a special provision for assessment of search cases. The above Chapter was introduced by the
Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1st July, 1995, with an avowed object to make the procedure of assessment of search cases cost effective, efficient and
meaningful and under the new scheme introduced by the said Chapter, the assessment of undisclosed income determined as a result of search
under s. 132 or requisition under s. 132A of the Act shall be made separately as the income of a block of years. The salient features of the scheme
are that undisclosed income of a person shall be assessed as the income of a block period consisting of a period of 10 previous years prior to the
previous year in which the search was conducted and also the period of the current previous year upto the date of the search and the income shall
be taxed at a flat rate of 60 per cent and the order of assessment for block period shall be made within the period prescribed and the order shall
be passed with the prior approval of the CIT. It is significant to notice that proceedings under s. 132(5) or 132(7) of the Act are no longer
necessary for searches initiated and conducted after 1st Jan., 1995, and the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the
total income of the previous years falling within block period computed in accordance with the Chapter IV and certain suitable adjustments are
required to be made as indicated in s. 158BB of the IT Act. Under s. 158BC of the Act, the AO is required to determine the undisclosed income
of the block period in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 158BB of the Act and the AO is also required to determine undisclosed
income of the block period in accordance with the Chapter IV and he shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by the
assessee on the basis of such assessment. Sec. 158BC(d) of the Act also provides that assets seized under s. 132 or requisition under s. 132A of
the Act shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of s. 132B of the Act shall apply subject to certain modifications which are
necessary. It is relevant to notice that under s. 158BA of the Act, the provisions of the Chapter XIV-B of the Act would override all other
provisions contained in the Act. In other words, the provisions of the Chapter XW-B will have overriding effect and would operate
notwithstanding anything contained in all other provisions of the Act.
In the context of making block assessment in search cases, the question whether the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 seized during the
search against the existing tax liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95 by the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee''s case at that time is justified or not
has to be considered. In my view, the adjustment made by the AO of a sum of Rs. 24,25,700, insofar as it relates to the tax arrears for the asst.
yr. 1994-95, is not justified or valid in the eye of law. As already held by me, the provisions of the Chapter XIV-B of the Act would override all
other provisions of the Act and if assets are seized, they have to be dealt with only in the manner and the mode prescribed under s. 158BC of the
Act. In other words, the block assessment has to be made under s. 158BC of the Act and tax liability for the entire block period has to be
determined and the liability so determined in the said manner has to be adjusted against the cash or other assets seized in the course of search
conducted by the IT Department and if any surplus remains after such adjustment, it would be perfectly open to the AO to adjust the balance of
the amount against the existing tax liability of the assessee. I hold that it is not open to the AO to tilt the order of priority and adjust the amount of
cash or assets seized against the existing liability first and then adjust the balance amount against the liability that may arise on the completion of
block assessment. Chapter XIV-B is a special provision for assessment of search cases, and it is relevant to notice that the assessment under this
chapter is block assessment and the block assessment is in addition to regular assessment. In other words, block assessment and regular
assessment run in two different tracks and it is impermissible for the AO to adjust the amount seized first against the existing tax liability of the
assessee and then adjust the balance against the liability that may arise out of block assessment.
The scheme relating to making assessment consequent to search and seizure underwent some changes in the year 1995, and prior to the year
1995, under s. 132(5) of the Act, the AO was required to make a summary assessment and during the summary assessment, he was required to
arrive at undisclosed income of the assessee in summary manner on the basis of the available materials and then calculate the tax payable as if the
said summary assessment was the regular assessment. In the summary assessment the AO was required to specify the amount that might be
required to satisfy the existing liability and the AO was empowered to retain in his custody the assets seized that would be sufficient to satisfy the
aggregate amount viz., tax and interest and if there exists any tax liability after adjustment, he was also empowered to realise the same from the
person from whom the assets were seized. Under s. 132B of the Act, after making a regular assessment, the AO is empowered to adjust the
amount seized against the tax liability that may arise on the basis of assessment or reassessment for all the assessment years relevant to the previous
years to which the undisclosed income relates. Under the provisions of the Act then existing, the priority prescribed in s. 132(5) of the Act is that
the AO was required to first adjust the amount seized against the tax liability determined in a summary manner and then adjust the balance if any
against the existing tax liability that may arise on the basis of regular assessment. Since the AO had already adjusted the amount seized against the
existing liability after the completion of the assessment, he would not be required to make further adjustment towards existing liability as the liability
had already been adjusted. Under s. 132B of the Act, the AO after making regular assessment or reassessment was required to determine the tax
liability either in the assessment on in the reassessment, as the case may be, and adjust the amount seized against the liability so determined. But the
scheme underwent radical change in the year 1995 and once block assessment proceedings are on under the Chapter XIV, the AO is required to
determine the tax liability that may arise in the course of the block assessment and adjust the said tax liability against the amount seized and if there
is any surplus available, it would be open to him to adjust the said surplus against the existing tax liability. The AO, in the instant case, had made
adjustment in a topsy-turvy manner and unilaterally adjusted the cash seized first against the existing tax liability and then tried to adjust the balance
of the seized amount available against the liability that arose in the block assessment. In my view, once the block assessment proceedings are on, it
is not possible or permissible for the ITO to adjust the cash seized in the search against the existing tax liability. As existing liability is a known
figure for any previous assessment year, it is always open to the AO to recover the same by resorting to recovery proceedings to recover the
existing liability. Block assessment proceedings, as already held by me, have an overriding effect and the cash or assets seized have to be adjusted
first against the block assessment liability.
In the view I have taken it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question whether any prior opportunity should be given before
making the adjustment or cash seized against the existing liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95 by the AO. However, it is significant to notice that on the
facts of the case, the petitioner in his letter dt. 29th Jan., 1997, has expressed his intention for the transfer of some amounts from his banker to the
P. D. account of the Department and he has also stated that the amount should be appropriated towards the tax liability that would arise under the
block assessment. In the face of the letter given by the petitioner dt. 29th Jan., 1997, in my view, it was not permissible for the AO to go against
that letter and adjust the amount seized against the existing tax liability. Though there is no dispute that the cash seized and kept in P. D. account of
the CIT is the money belonging to the petitioner and when the tax liability is adjusted, it would, in effect, reduce the ultimate tax liability of the
petitioner, and the question that arises is whether it is possible to alter the priority. It is not a case of set off of refunds under s. 245 of the Act
against the tax remaining payable under the Act and under s. 245 of the Act, an intimation in writing should be given of the proposed action.
Though the provisions of s. 245 of the Act do not in terms apply to the proceedings under s. 132B of the Act, and s. 132B of the Act does not
expressly provide for an intimation to be given to the assessee of the proposed action to set off the cash seized against the existing liability, on the
facts of the case, it is seen, no intimation was given by the AO after adjustment of a part of cash against the existing liability for 1994-95 as was
done by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle 1(5), Chennai, on 20th July, 1998, enclosing challans and the mode of adjustment of P. D. account.
Though the Asstt. CIT by his letter dt. 20th July, 1998, informed that the amount adjusted out of the seized cash was only Rs. 23,40,525, the
Asstt. CIT has neither intimated, nor informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 was adjusted towards the existing liability for the asst.
yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95. Further, as soon as the petitioner became aware that the said amount was adjusted contrary to his request, the
petitioner made an application on 21st Oct., 1998, to the CIT, Central-L In my view, the priority of adjustment of cash seized against the block
liability the seized cash was not strictly adhered to by the AO on the facts and circumstances of the case. I am unable to accept the submission of
the learned senior counsel that the adjustment in the instant case was done in a valid and legal manner, I am of the view, though the petitioner was
in arrears of tax for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95, the adjustment of seized cash made first against the existing tax liability can neither be
regarded as valid, nor justified in the context of block assessment proceedings pending under the Chapter XIV-B of the Act. The submission of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner (sic-respondents) that the provisions of s. 132B of the Act has to be read in conjunction with s. 158BC of
the Act and under s. 132B of the Act, it is open to the AO to adjust the seized assets against the existing tax liability and therefore, the adjustment
made was legal and justified is not well-founded as s. 158BC of the Act cannot be read de hors the scheme of block assessment. The block
assessment, as already held by me, is a special provision which overrides all other provisions of the Act. The intention of the Parliament is that
block assessment under Chapter XIV-13 should proceed in a different channel and once it proceeds in a different track, the liability arising out of
the said chapter has first to be determined and adjusted against the seized assets under s. 132B of the Act. No doubt, the AO is empowered to
recover existing liability from the assets seized, but however, the AO would be empowered to adjust existing tax liability against the seized assets
only if there is any surplus amount remaining after adjustment of block assessment liability against the seized assets and retained by the AO. The
priority under the scheme, in my view, is that the AO has to first determine the tax liability under block assessment and adjust the tax liability
against the assets retained and if there is any surplus, the existing liability can be adjusted against such surplus. The AO, in the instant case, has not
adhered to the priority contemplated under the scheme of the Act and any interpretation de hors the scheme of block assessment, in my view, is
not warranted. Therefore, 1 am of the view, s. 158BC cannot be construed independent of the scheme of the Act and it must be construed in the
light of the scheme of block assessment. Therefore, the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 made by the AO against the existing liability for the
asst. yr. 1994-95 is not valid and justified in law. Though the Asstt. CIT by letter dt. 20th July, 1998, merely informed the petitioner that
adjustment of seized cash was made, since the adjustment was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the adjustment has to be set
aside.
It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner was under the impression that adjustment had not been made towards the tax liability for the asst.
yr. 1994-95, that is the reason for the petitioner to approach the CIT with a petition for stay of collection of tax before the CIT. It is also significant
to notice that the CIT also proceeded on the basis that there was no adjustment, and this is the reason for him to reject the petition for stay and he
also directed the petitioner to pay entire tax arrears for the asst. yr.1994-95. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Departmental
Representative opposed the petition for stay on the basis that the existing tax liability was pending and the orders were passed after the alleged
adjustment that was made on 20th Feb., 1997. Further, it is also relevant to notice that the procedure contemplated for adjustment against seized
cash was not followed by the AO. In the letter dt. 20th July, 1998, the Asstt. CIT informed how adjustment of seized cash for a sum of Rs.
23,40,525 was made. He also informed as to how the amount was realised by invoking bank guarantee of Rs. 9,50,000 and along with the said
letter, he has also enclosed copies of necessary challans. It is clear that when the adjustment was made towards the existing liability for the asst.
yrs. 199394 and 1994-95, the said procedure was not followed by the AO. Consequently, I hold that the adjustment made by the AO to adjust
the sum of Rs. 24,25,700 against the tax liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95 of the petitioner was not validly done and not justified on the facts of the
case as well. Accordingly, the impugned order dt. 18th Nov., 1998, is set aside.
Once this Court finds that the adjustment towards existing tax liability for a sum of Rs. 24,25,700 was not made in accordance with law, the
result would be that there was no adjustment of the seized cash against the existing liability for the asst. yr. 1994-95 and it must be held that as on
31st March, 1998, the petitioner was in arrears of Income Tax for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Therefore, the rejection of the declaration filed by the
petitioner on the ground that there was no arrears of tax as on 31st March, 1998, is also not justified and accordingly, the impugned order in W.P.
No. 1424 of 1999 is also quashed. The result is that the designated authority under the WS should proceed in accordance with the scheme and
determine the liability of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95 under the WS. As I have already held, the assets seized are to be adjusted towards
the assessment that may arise out of the block assessment and if any surplus remains after the adjustment of tax liability arising out of the block
assessment, it is needless to say that the AO is empowered to adjust the same towards the existing tax liability for any other assessment years.
In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
OPEN