Holding

Since the order passed under Section 132(8) of the Income‑Tax Act was not challenged, no relief could be granted to the appellants, and the seized cash must be kept in an interest‑bearing fixed deposit pending completion of assessment within the statutory period.

Summary

The Income Tax authorities conducted a search and seizure at the premises of M/s K.C.C. Software Ltd., seizing jewellery, cash and fixed‑deposit receipts and restraining five bank accounts under sections 132(3) and 132(8) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. The appellants filed writ petitions seeking release of the seized assets, lifting of the restraint order and quashing of the warrants, contending that the restraint period of 60 days had expired, that the cash should be treated as "cash in hand" and returned after adjustment of self‑assessment and advance tax, and that Section 132B relating to estimated liability was no longer applicable. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions; the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that because the order passed under Section 132(8) was not challenged by the assessee, no relief could be granted, and directed that the seized cash be kept in an interest‑bearing fixed deposit pending final assessment. The Court also directed that the assessment be completed within the statutory period of 31 March 2008. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed subject to these directions.

Issues considered

The validity of the restraint order under Section 132(3) and its 60‑day limitation under Section 132(8A).
Whether the cash seized can be retained for estimated liability under Section 132B after the deletion of the provision.
The distinction between "cash in hand" and "cash in bank" for purposes of seizure and release.
Whether the order under Section 132(8) was properly challenged and can be set aside.
The appropriate treatment of seized cash pending final assessment.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 132(1)(iii), s. 132(3), s. 132(8), s. 132(8A), s. 132(b), s. 132B, s. 153(A), s. 158(A)

Subjects

Income TaxSearch and SeizureSection 132Restraint orderCash seizureFixed depositAssessment periodTax liabilityAppeal

Judgment

,.
-1-

~

I!-
+-" .__
.-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 168

A M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. AND ORS.
v.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 769 of 2008)
JANUARY 29, 2008.
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) ,..,
~

Income Tax Act, 1961; Ss. 132(1)(iii), 132(3), 132(8A), ·
132(b), 153(A) and 158(A):
c Search of premises of assessee by income tax authorities
- -Seizure ·of jewellery, cash and fixed deposit receipts -
Operation of bank accounts restrained in terms of order
passed by authorities uls. 132(8) of the Act- Representations
of_ assessees for release of seized articles, cash and to lift
D restraint order not considered by authorities - Writ petition -
dismissed by High Court - On appeal, Held: Since order
passed by the authorities u/s. 132(8) of the Act not challenged ~
--+
by assessee, no relief could be granted to him - Authorities .
are directed to complete the assessment within the time period ;
E statutorily provided for - Cash seized and transferred to the
account of Commissioner be kept in interest bearing fixed
deposit - Directions issued - Income Tax Search and Seizure
Manual- Paras 5.01 and 5.02 - Check List of articles seized
- Cash seized - Deposit of.
F Words and Phrases: ..,_,A

'Cash in hand' and 'cash in bank' - Distinction between -
Discussed in the context of search and seizure of cash.
Pursuant to warrant of authorization, search and
G seizure was conducted by the authorities of Income-tax ,_ ,
Department in the premises of the assessee. Certain
assets including jewellery, cash and fixed deposit receipts
were seized. Operation of five bank accounts of appellant
Nos.1 and 3 had also been restrained in terms of order
H 168
----+---· Mts: K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 169
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS.

issued by the authorities under S.132(3) of the Income Tax A ·
Act, 1961. Appellant represented for lifting the restraint
order as the information about all bank accounts under
restraint have been disclosed in the regular books of
account and the restraint order was hampering the day
to day operations of the business of the company. B
Appellant No.3 moved an application under Section 132(8)
of the Act to the authorities for release of jewellery and
FDR. Appellant No.2 addressed a letter to the Manager of
the Bank informing him that as per provisions of Section
132 (SA) of the Act, the restraint order was no longer c
operative. However, the authorities issued two fresh
warrants of authorization to the Bank in respect of the
bank accounts in question and the bank accounts of the
appellants were seized. Since then, appellants Nos. 1 & 3
represented for release of the amount seized by the
0
authorities after adjusting self-assessment tax for the
assessment years 2005-2006 and advance tax for the year
2006-2007, but the authorities had failed to release the
balance amount. The appellants filed writ petitions for
appropriate directions to the authorities for release of
seized articles and balance amount and to quash the E
warrants of authorization. The writ petitions were
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Appellants contended that the order passed under
Section 132B of the Act shows that the amount was F
ordered to be retained for estimated liability. However,
such a course is not available after deletion of the
provision relating to estimated liability in the year 2002;
that since the authorities themselves permitted
adjustment of self assessment and advance tax, the
balance amount has perforce to be refundabte; that there G
is no dispute that Section 132 (3) read with Section 132
(SA) of the Act restricts the period of operation of the order
of restraint to 60 days; that s.132B relates to adjusting
liability on completion of assessment under Section 153A
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A and it is relatable to the year in which search and seizure
was initiated and block period in terms of Chapter XIV-8
of the Act; and that s.158 relates to retention and not
appropriation of the cash seized.
Respondents submitted that reference to Section
B 153A in Section 1328 shows that it relates to estimated
liability; that though it is accepted that the provision -r
-~
relating to estimated liability in terms of Section 132 (5)
was deleted w.e.f. 1.6.2002, yet in view of Section 1538
the period of assessment is continuing; and that the
C amount even though withdrawn has not been taken to
the consolidated funds, there is no appropriation in that
sense.
Dismissing the appeal with directions, the Court
D HELD: 1.1 There are different stages under Section
. 132 (1) .of the Income Tax Act. First stage is seizure, then
comes adjudication on the non disclosure aspect and
theri determination relatable to Section 132 (BA). Lastly,
the order can be passed under Section 1328 of the Act.
E (Para -12) [176-G, G]
1.2· On a. bare reading of Income Tax Search and
s·eizure Manual, it is clear that the same is relatable to cash
seized and cash in bank is conceptually different from
cash in hand. (Para - 16) [179-C]
F ·Shanti Prasad Jain \I." The Director of Enforcement (1963) /'-
2 SCR 297 - followed.
Foley v. Hill [(1843 to 1860) All E.R. Re-print 16] -
. referred to.
G 2. This Court need not go into the broader issue in
view of the fact that there is no challenge to the order >--
passed under Section 1328 of the Act. But it has been
stated by counsel for the revenue that it is permissible to
.complete the assessment by 31st March, 2008. In view of
H the aforesaid scenario, the appeal is disposed of with the
M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 171
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J:1.

directions that since order passed by the authorities A
under Section 1328 of the Act was not challenged, no
relief can be granted to the appellants; that it would be in
the interests of the assessee as well as the revenue if the
amount transferred to the PD account of the
Commissioner is kept in interest bearing fixed deposit as B
ultimately in the event the assessee succeeds, would be
entitled to interest as provided in the statute and that the
assessment has to be completed within the time '
statutorily provided. (Para - 19) [181-A, B, C, D]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 769 , C
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2006 of
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 6313-15/
2006
D
S.K. Bagaria, Meenakshi Arora and S. Gupta for the
Appellants.
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Navin Prakash and B.V. Balaram Das
for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ
petitions filed by the appellants. F
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A search and seizure was conducted by the respondents
in the premises of the appellants pursuant to warrants of
authorization dated 3.8.2005. On 4.8.2005 certain assets G
including jewellery, cash and fixed deposit receipts were seized.
On that very day, appellants received a letter from the HDFC
Bank at 8-28, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi that
operation of five bank accounts of appellant No.1 had been
restrained by order issued under Section 132 (3) of the Income H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The Bank issued a similar
letter to appellant No.3 intimating that the said appellant had
been restrained from operating her Savings Bank account by
order dated 3.8.2005 passed under Section 132(3) of the Act.
Appellant's stand was that existence of the locker~ and the bank
B accounts were disclosed by the appellants in the regular books
of account maintained and no opportunity was provided to
•
· establish the said fact. It was further submitted that the computers
. which contained the details of the bank accounts were available
at the business premises at Janakpuri and no opportunity was
c allowed to the appellants to place these before the authorities.
Grievance is made that apart from the non grant of
opportunity no effort whatsoever was made to ascertain whether
the accounts had been disclosed in the regular books of account
maintained by the appellants. On 8.8.2005 appellant addressed
D a letter to the Additional Director of Income Tax stating inter alia
that all bank accounts under restraint have been disclosed in
the regular books of account and also that the restraint order
was hampering the day to day operations of the business of the
company. On the same day, appellant No.3 wrote another letter
E to the concerned authority requesting him to remove the restraint
order in Savings Bank account. On 16.9.2005, appellant No.1
addressed another letter to the Assistant Director of Income
Tax (Investigation) again reiterating its stand that the bank
accounts have been disclosed in the regular books of account
F and there was no justification for keeping the restraint on the
operation for the bank accounts.
4. According to the appellants no reply was received to
the letters dated 8.8.2005 and 16.9.2005 and the respondents
did not make any effort to verify the ·correctness of the appellant's
G contentions. On 21.9.2005 appellant No.3 moved an application
under Section 132(B) of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of
Iricome Tax for release of jewellery worth Rs.4, 76,588/- and FDR
of Rs.1, 79, 710/-. Since the nature and source was duly
explained, the limitation of 60 days in terms of Section 132(8A)
H expired w.e.f. 31.8.2005 i.e. the date of issuance of the order of
MIS. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 173
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

restraint. On 3.10.2005 appellant No.2 addressed a letter to A
the Manager, HDFC Bank informing ·him that as per provisions
of Section 132 (SA) of the Act, the restraint order was no longer
operative. On 4.10.2005 Bank through its Bank Manager sought
clarification from the Deputy Director of Income Tax. The Income
Tax Department on 4.10.2005 issued two fresh warrants of B
authorization under Section 132 of the Act in respect of the bank
accounts. It is alleged that the appellants were not informed about
the warrants of search. On 5.10.2005 the bank accounts of the
appellants were searched and seized through withdrawal of cash
by demand drafts.Appellant's stand in essence is that the fresh c
warrants of authorization were without jurisdiction and in any
event since the accounts had been duly disclosed in the regular
books of account, there was no scope for operating Section
132 (3) of the Act. The earlier order passed under Section 132
(3) of the Act ceased to be operative w.e.f. 2/3.10.2005. On D
8.10.2005 the bank by a letter informed the appellants about
search and seizure of the bank accounts under Section 132 (3)
of the Act and also gave details of demand drafts issued in
favour of respondent No.2 withdrawing the money from. the
accounts of the appellants.
E
5. On 28.10.2005 the appellants were supplied with copies
of the Panchnama. On 29.10.2005 appellant No.1 requested
the respondents to adjust towards self assessment tax of
Rs. 77,68,177/-for the assessment year 2005-06 from the seized
amount of Rs.1,81,91,982/- and to release the balance. On F
29.11.2005 appellants Nos.1 and 3 moved an application under
Section 132 (B) of the Act for release of the amount seized on
5.10.2005 i.e. within 30 days of the end of the month in which
seizure took place. Several documents were filed to
substantiate the claim. Again on 16.2.2006 Income tax G
authorities were requested for adjustment of Rs.40,00,000/- as
advance tax for the assessment year 2006-07 from the seized
amount and to release the balance. Since the respondents failed
to respond to the requests of the· appellants, writ petitions
Nos.6313-6315 of 2006 were filed inter alia for the following
H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2-s.C.R. - ~ --
'

A directions: ~

"(a) to respondents to release the balance amount of
Rs.61,85,502/- to petitioner No.1 after accepted
adjustments;

B (b) to respondents to release amount of Rs.25,27 ,035
to petitioner No.3;
(c) quash and set aside Warrants of Authorization dated "'f
~
4.10.2005;

c (d) declare restraint order dated 3.8.2005 as i11egal;
(e) release FDRs/jewellery of petitioner No.3 seized on
4.8.2005. ~

6. The respondents filed counter affidavit contending inter
D alia as follows
"(i) 1st order of search and seizure was passed and served
only on 4th August, 2005;
..,...~'
(ii) The application dated 29.11.2005 had been disposed
off vide order dated 1st February, 2006 (which order was
E
not communicated to the petitioners).
'·
~

(iii) It is contended that in the search and seizure
operations carried out on 4.8.2005 authorized officer
arrived at the conclusion that the Bank accounts in question.
F were undisclosed and immediately passed as restraint
order. t-·
(iv) The respondent acknowledged that 60 days from the
date of issue of restraint order expired on 3.8.2005.

G (v) It is admitted that on 4.10.2005 warrants of
authorization in respect of the same accounts only were
again issued by DIT.
(vi) On the strength of such warrants and seizure operation
on 4th and 5th October, 2005 amount of Rs.80,59,539,
H Rs.1,01,32,443 and Rs.25,27,035 respectively were
-·+ MIS. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 175
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
.,_
seized from the said Bank accounts. A
(vii) That the entries in the books of accounts etc. were
27.7.2005 and no entries were found between 28.7.2005
to 4.8.2005 hence non disclosure in books of accounts
since books were not written for 516 days.
B
(viii) It was alleged that the amounts lying in the Bank were
,.. ~
not disclosed and not accounted for and therefore ther~
was no question of lifting the restraint order."
7. A rejoinder affidavit was filed on 2.11.2006 taking the
stand that the order dated 1.2.2006 was not served and there c
were apparent contradictions as regards the search and seizure
in the pleadings. By the impugned order the writ petitions were
dismissed observing that the respondents had taken a stand
that there was estimated tax liability of approximately
Rs.10,00,000/-. The satisfaction note dated 13.9.2005 of ADIT, D
Unit I and the notings of the Director (investigation) clearly
indicated that the stand of the appellants was without substance.
r
-11!
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
factual scenario clearly shows that the authorities acted without
jurisdiction in directing either to retain the amount after E
adjustment of the self assessment and advance tax or also
withdrawing the amount by demand drafts from the bank
~ accounts. The order passed under Section 132B shows that it
'· was retained for estimated liability. Such a course is not
available after deletion of the provision relating to estimated F
>~
liability in 2002. Similarly, the provisions relating to block period
assessments in Chapter XIV were deleted w.e.f. 1.6.2003. As
the authorities themselves permitted adjustment of self
assessment and advance tax, there was in effect release
accepting the stand of the appellants and the balance amount G
...
,
of Rs.81,00,000/- has perforce to be refundable. Tile power
under Section 132(1 )(iii) relates to seizure and the proviso deals
with assets which cannot be seized. There is no dispute that
Section 132 (3) read with Section 132 (8A) restricts the period
of operation of the order of restraint to 60 days. Section 132B H
--+--
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

~
A relates to adjusting liability on completion of assessment under
Section 153A and it is relatable to the year in which search and
seizure was initiated and block period in terms of Chapter XIV-
B. Section 158 relates to retention and not appropriation.
9. Stand of the respondents on the other hand was that
8 reference to Section 153A in Section 1328 shows that it relates
to estimated liability. Though it is accepted that the provision _,
4
relating to estimated liability in terms of Section 132 (5) was
deleted w.e.f. 1.6.2002, yet in view of Section 1538 the per:iod
of assessment is continuing. The amount even though withdrawn
c has not been taken to the consolidated funds. There is no
appropriation in that sense.
10. It was stated that the order passed under Section 132
(3) was revoked but a fresh order was passed. The money has
been withdrawn in terms of "Search and Seizure Manual, 1989",
D
particularly Paras 5.01 and 5.02 thereof. The adjustment that
has been done is for existing liability. There is no appropriation
in that sense because it can be done only after assessment is )!lo
--<
completed by transfer.

E 11. Stand of the appellants essentially was that there is no
power for retaining any amount seized for the purpose of meeting.
estimated liability. That according to the appellants was
permissible upto 1.6.2002 and by deletion of Section 132 (5)
,.
,)
the position has been materially changed.
F 12. Stand of the revenue on the other hand seems to be 1" '
that what is appropriated can be cash and not money. The bank
account in essence is not cash but is money. There are different
stages under Section 132 (1 ). First stage is seizure, then comes
adjudication on the non disclosure aspect and then
G determination relatable to Section 132 (BA). Lastly, the order
can be passed under Section 1328. It has been specifically )...

stated by learned counsel for the revenue that Section 132(3)
order was revoked. It is stated in para 1O of the affidavit filed on
15.11.2007 as follows:
H
M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 177
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

"That it is submitted that in the instant case the power A
under Section 132(3) was exercised at the initial stage for
the purposes of verification of the source of funds lying in
the bank account. Thereafter, when the assessee was
unable to satisfactorily explain the source of these funds,
the same were seized under a fresh warrant under Section B
132(1) issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), who
duly recorded his satisfaction as provided under Section
132 (1)(c).
13. In paragraph 11 it has been stated as follows.
c
"It is submitted that an Authorized Officer acting under
Section 132 (1 )(iii) of the Act has full power and jurisdiction
1

to seize cash balance lying in .bank account as these would
come within the meaning of 'money' and/o~ 'assets' as
provided under Section 132 (1)(iii) of the Act. It is submitted D
that the subsequent action of converting these balances
into a demand draft is only a safeguard for safe custody
of these assets and is irrelevant to the legality of the seizure
itself. It is therefore submitted that in the instant case, the
seizure was made legally and as per the powers vested
in the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), respondent E
No.1 under Section 132 (1) of the Act."
14. "The Search and Seizure Manual" to which reference
has been made deals with in Chapter V under heading "Post
Search Work". The relevant paras 5.01and5.02 read as follows: F
"5.01· After the return of the search parties, a check list
should be prepared for pending and immediate follow up
work. The check list may inter alia include:-
(a) List of places where search has to be continued.
G
(b) Details of bank lockers sealed and to be opened
subsequently. _
(c) List of places where valuables are sealed in premises
itself on the ground that verifi~ation with Wealth-tax records .H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. ~

A is not possible or pending valuation of assets. Jr

(d) List of godowns holding stocks, in respect of which
prohibitory orders have been issued.
(e) List of places where police guards have been posted.
B (f) Details of bank accounts which have been frozen
under Section 132 (3).
~
_.
(g) List of places where further section has to be taken
for any other reason.
c (h) List of promissory notes, fixed deposit's receipts, i
Hundies etc. requiring special attention.
(i) Details of packages of cash which are to be deposited
into the Personal deposit Account in the Reserve Bank/
D ·State Bank.
(j) Details of packages of bullions, jewellery etc. required
to be deposited in the strong room/safe deposit vault of
--""'(
the bank. ~

(k) Work regarding valuation of jewellery seized.
E
(I) Details of sealed covers containing damaged/
mutilated documents.
(m) Particulars of complaints filed in police, as result of
any incident during the search, which are required to be
F followed up.
5.02 Deposit of Cash
The cash seized is required to be deposited in the
bank in the Personal Deposit Account of the
G Commissioner, at the earliest opportunity preferably on
the next working day. However, if due to unavoidable
reasons, it is not possible, the cash with other valuables
may be kept in the strong room of the Commissioner or
the safe deposit vault of the bank. Where cash has been
H brought in sealed packet, it is expected that the authorized
--+MIS. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 179
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
~- officer has already issued a letter to the assessee A
requesting him to be .present before the AD IT-in-charge
on the following morning before 12 O' clock. Where the
cash seized relates to an assessee who is assessed in
the charge of some other Commissioner, a crossed ~ccount
payee demand draft in favour of the concerned B
Commissioner should be obtained and dispatched to him."
~-
['
+ 15. It is stated that amount has not become a part of the
Consolidated Fund of India and is deposited in separate PD
account of the concerned Commissioner and is held in the
custody till final determination of the tax liability by the assessing c
officer for the relevant assessment years.
16. On a bare reading of the Manual it is clear that the
same is relatable to cash seized and cash in bank is
conceptually different from cash in hand.
D
17. In Shanti Prasad Jain v. The Director of Enforcement
(1963 (2) SCR 297) it was inter alia observed as follows:
,.
""' "Under the law the time relationship between a Banker
and a customer is that of a debtor and creditor and that it
makes no difference in that relationship that the deposits
E
were conditional.
xx xx xx
Now the law is well settled that when moneys are deposited
in a Bank, the relationship that is constituted between the F
banker and the customer is one of the debtor and creditor
and not trustee and beneficiary. The banker is entitled to
use the monies without being called upon to account for
such user, his only liability being to return the amount in
accordance with the terms agreed between him and the G
__., customer. And it makes no difference in the jural
relationship whether the deposits were made by the
customer himself, or by some other persons, provided the
customer accepted them. There might be special
arrangement under which a Banker might be constituted H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A a trustee, but apart from such an arrangement,.his position
qua Banker is that of a debtor, and not trustee. The law
was stated in those terms in the old and well-known
decision of the House of Lords in Foley v. Hill (1848 11
H.L.C. 289 E.R. 1002) and that has never been
B questioned."
18. In the judgment of House of Lords in Foley v. Hill [(1843
to 1860) All E. R. Re-print 16] referred in the aforesaid judgment
of the Constitution Bench, it was inter a,lia held as under:

c "Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be
the money of the owner, it is then the money of the banker,
who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar
sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.
The money paid into the bankers, is money known by the
customer to be placed there for the purpose of being under
D
the control of the banker; It is then the banker's money; he
is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit
on .it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back
only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in
some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest,
E according to the custom of bankers in other places .... He
is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it, he is not
answerable to the customer if he puts it into jeopardy, if he
engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to
keep it or deal with it as the property of the customer, but
F he is, of course, answerable for the amount because he
has contracted, having received that money; to repay to
the customer, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that
paid into his hands. That has been the subject of discussion
in various cases, and that has been established to be the
G relative situation of banker and customer. That being
established, to be the relative situation of banker and
customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a
debtor."
19. At this juncture, it is to be clarified about the
H
-+- MIS. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. & ORS. v. DIRECTOR 181
OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

impermissibility to convert assets to cash and thereafter A
impound the same. We need not go into the broader issue in
view of the fact that there is no challenge to the order passed
under Secti~n 1328 of the Act. But it has been stated by learned
counsel for the revenue that it is permissible to complete the
assessment by 31st March, 2008. In view of the aforesaid B
scenario, we dispose of the appeal with the following directions:
.....
·.,, (i) In view of the non challenge to the order passed
under Section 1328, no relief can be granted to the
appellants.
c
(ii) However, it would be in the interests of the assessee
as well as the revenue if the amount transferred to
the .PD account of the Commissioner is kept in
interest bearing fixed deposit as ultimately in the
event the assessee succeeds, would be entitled to
0
interest as provided in the statute. The assessment
has to be completed on or before 31st March, 2008
·~..., i.e. within the time statutorily provided.
20. The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid
directions. There will be no order as to costs. E
-1
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.
l

L