Pradeep Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

sooperkanoon.com/705446

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Oct-26-2004
Case Number	Civil Misc. No. 10125 of 2004 in Writ Petn. Nos. 4581 to 4583 of 2004
Judge	B.C. Patel, C.J. and; Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Reported in	(2004)192CTR(Del)412
Acts	Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 132B and 142(2A)
Appellant	Pradeep Mishra
Respondent	Commissioner of Income Tax
Appellant Advocate	O.S. Bajpai and; L.S. Dass, Advs
Respondent Advocate	Prem Lata Bansal and ; Ajay Jha, Advs.

Excerpt:

.....fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......who was appointed as a special auditor under the provisions contained in section 142(2a) of the it act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the order of the settlement commission was to the effect that the assets will be released after the taxes and interests are fully paid. the court was informed that the taxes and interests are fully paid. on 20th aug., 2004; a statement was made by the applicant in cm no. 9697 of 2004 that the fees are to be recovered as tax dues from the respondents as provided in section 142(2d) of the act. it is in view of this that we stayed our order dt. 27th july, 2004, till further orders. it may be noted that so far as the question of payment of fees to the chartered accountant/auditor is concerned, it has been decided today in wp (c) 1775 of 2000 and 6312 of 2000 filed by the assessed and chartered accountant, respectively. if the assessed has paid all the taxes and interests as per the order made by the settlement commission, then the order passed by the settlement commission is required to be complied with. according to the learned counsel, all the taxes and interests are fully paid. if that is so, then only the auditor's fee, as.....

Judgment:

1. These petitions were disposed of by an order dt. 27th July, 2004, with the direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to carry out the directions of the Income-tax Settlement Commission within a period of four weeks from that date. However, in the meanwhile, CM No. 9697 of 2004 was filed by the chartered accountant who was appointed as a special auditor under the provisions contained in Section 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The order of the Settlement Commission was to the effect that the assets will be released after the taxes and interests are fully paid. The Court was informed that the taxes and interests are fully paid. On 20th Aug., 2004; a statement was made by the applicant in CM No. 9697 of 2004 that the fees are to be recovered as tax dues from the respondents as provided in Section 142(2D) of the Act. It is in view of this that we stayed our order dt. 27th July, 2004, till further orders. It may be noted that so far as the question of payment of fees to the chartered accountant/auditor is concerned, it has been decided today in WP (C) 1775 of 2000 and 6312 of 2000 filed by the assessed and chartered accountant, respectively. If the assessed has paid all the taxes and interests as per the order made by the Settlement Commission, then the order passed by the Settlement Commission is required to be complied with. According to the learned counsel, all the taxes and interests are fully paid. If that is so, then only the auditor's fee, as ordered by this Court, is required to be paid by the assessed and, till the auditor's fees are paid, it would be open for the Revenue to retain the jewellery. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that if the articles other than the jewellery are released/returned to the petitioner, then within a period of four weeks he will be able to make the payment for the auditor fees as ordered by this Court and upon the discharge letter given by the auditor, the jewellery be released by the CIT. We direct accordingly. The articles/assets other than jewellery shall be released within a period of one week. We also make it clear that in case the auditor's fees as ordered by this Court are paid by the petitioner earlier, then on production of discharge letter issued by the chartered accountant/ auditor concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to move the CIT for release of the jewellery also as ordered by the the Settlement Commission.

With these directions, the CM stands disposed of.