On appeal against the judgement of single judge the division bench held that the finding of the single judge that the encashments of Indira Vikas Patras were carried out by the second respondent-Assessing Officer, while the first respondent had only co-ordinated the collection and encashment of Indira Vikas Patras, was erroneous. The encashment of the Indira Vikas Patras was contrary to law and void having been carried out by a person without authority. Moreover for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, covered by the orders, the Indira Vikas Patras were adjusted by the Department, even prior to the determination of liability. For the year 1995-96, the adjustments were effected on different dates between April, 1995 to January, 1997. For the year 1994-95, the adjustments were affected in August and October 1997. It was thus evident that the Indira Vikas Patras were adjusted against liabilities that were not determined on the date of such adjustments. The adjustments were therefore invalid under this count also.The application for the grant of benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would stand revived. (AY. 1994-95, 1995-96)
Dr. R. P. Patel v. ADIT (Inv.) (2021)438 ITR 53 / ( 2022) 210 DTR 62/ 324 CTR 547 (Ker.)(HC)
S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Authorised Officer can retain seized assets only for fifteen days-Seized Assets must be handed over to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee within fifteen days-Adjustment of liability out of seized assets-Liability must be determined on completion of assessment-No adjustment before completion of assessment-Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would stand revived [S. 132, 132 (9A), Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1988].