Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and Others vs Commissioner of Income Tax

R. Gururajan, J.—These petitions are filed by Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and two others seeking for various reliefs.

Facts in brief are as under :

Respondent authorities conducted search and seizure u/s 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ("Act" for short), of the assessees, namely, Vithal Janardhan Jadhav, Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh and Vinayak Vilas Ghodke on 16th June, 1999, at Hubli. Search and seizure action was commenced and concluded on 16th June, 1999. As a result of search and seizure actions, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was seized from the said three persons. Notice u/s 158BC of the Act was issued and served on the assessees. Returns of Income Tax in Form No. 2B declaring their undisclosed income were filed for the block period from 1st April, 1989 to 16th June, 1999.

Petitioners and others claimed the cash seized as belonging to them. They filed writ petitions in this Court in Writ Petn. Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said petitions and directed the authorities to complete the proceedings initiated under Chapter XIV-B of the Act within six months. Thereafter, notices have been issued and petitioners entered appearance and proceedings were completed, Block assessment orders subsequently have been challenged before the CIT and they were rejected by the CIT. These orders are challenged in these writ petitions.

Respondents have entered appearance through their standing counsel.

Heard Sri Manoj D. Pukale, learned counsel for the petitioners. He took me through the proceedings to contend that the proceedings initiated were contrary to Section 132 of the Act. According to him, seizure of cash is not proper. He also finds fault with the proceedings. He took me through the proceedings to contend that injustice is meted out to his clients. He says that the cash ought to have been given to the petitioners. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order.

In the light of the arguments addressed by both the sides, I have carefully perused the material on record.

It is seen from the material on record that on 16th June, 1999, police personnel of Hubli found these petitioners with bags and suitcases containing Rs. 20,07,350. They were taken to police station. Information was passed on to the Dy. Director of IT, Hubli. These three persons revealed that the said cash belonged to a group of Raju Patadia of Hubli. An Inspector was deputed by the IT Department. Enquiries were held and the cash was seized. In the enquiry, petitioners stated that the cash does not belong to them and they have nothing to do with the said cash. The Department found Rs. 11,55,850 from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke, Rs. 4,27,500 from Vithal Janardhan Jadhav and Rs. 4,24,200 from Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh. Cash seized from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke was Rs. 11,53,000, from Vithal Janardhan Jadhav Rs. 4,25,000 and from Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh Rs. 4,22,000.

Assessment proceedings were concluded. Writ Petitions were also filed in this Court by the petitioners. Thereafter, revisions were filed and they were rejected, Before the revisional authority, it was contended that Section 158BC was applicable only where any search has been conducted u/s 132 of the Act. Revisional authority has noticed that the Dy. Director of IT went with authorisation to search the petitioners and seized cash from them. Revisional authority has also noticed that the issuing of notice u/s 158BC and passing of the order u/s 143(3) of the Act is proper and legal.

Petitioners'' learned counsel placed before me his arguments with regard to the procedure conducted by the respondents. He also questions the statement recorded and the conduct of the personnel vis-a-vis the IT Department. According to the learned counsel, they were taken to custody from the police and they went to police station. Learned counsel also attacks the authorisation of warrant. In the light of arguments, let me see as to whether a case has been made out before me or not.

It is noticed at this that the petitioners on an earlier occasion moved this Court in Writ Petn. Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. In this proceeding, it is seen that these petitioners question the legality or otherwise of the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities u/s 132(1) of the Act. They also sought for other reliefs including quashing of notice issued by the respondent authorities u/s 158BC of the Act. From the order of this Court it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are only interested in getting back the amount seized by the IT authorities after the authorities completing the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. No arguments were advanced with regard to these questions in the earlier proceedings. In the earlier petitions this Court in para 6 has ruled as under :

"6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petitioners'' case before this Court, these writ petitions are disposed of. A direction is issued to the first respondent authority to complete the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act pursuant to his notice dt. 23rd Aug., 1999, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court''s order, provided the petitioners co-operate with the Department to complete the proceedings."

In the light of the earlier order of this Court and in the light of the petitioners having not obtained any liberty to urge their contentions in subsequent proceedings, earlier order comes in the way of the present petitioners in challenging the earlier proceedings in this petition.

In the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to reappreciate the earlier arguments which were not pressed or which were advanced in an earlier petition. In the second petition, it is not open to the petitioners to urge the contents which have not been raised in the earlier, proceedings. In the circumstances, I do not find any error to interfere in the case on hand.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also states that it may be a mistake in the earlier proceedings. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and Another, has ruled in para 23 that a wrong concession on a question of law made by a counsel is not binding on his client, which would mean that a concession made on facts is binding on his client/s. I must also notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others, . The Supreme Court notices that the petitioner who withdraws the petition cannot file a fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action. In the case on hand, what is being done is only to revive the given up contentions in the earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the strenuous arguments on the part of the petitioners'' counsel, I am unable to appreciate them in the light of the earlier judgment of this Court. No acceptable arguments are placed before me.

In the circumstances, I have no option but to reject the petitions and confirm the orders passed by the revisional authority based on facts. Ordered accordingly. No costs.