Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Jageshwar Rosin And Turpentine Factory vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006]100ITD399(DELHI), [2006]285ITR55(DELHI)
ORDER
Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member
1. Both the first appeals by the different assessees are directed against the different orders of the Assistant CIT, Haldwani under Section 158BC/143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the material available on record as referred to by the parties. Learned Counsel for assessee filed copy of judgment of Sessions Judge, Nainital dated 28-2-2005 dismissing the appeals of the truck drivers.
3. The facts are identical in both the facts as submitted by the learned representatives of both the parties.
4. The facts arc that the Station Officer, Bhowali Police, Bhowali intercepted the following trucks loaded with Rosin & Turpentine in the night of 30-8-1996 at the above police station:
Truck Nos.
(1) UP-02-3737.
(2) UP-02-4114.
(3) UP-01-1011.
(4) UGP-4890.
(5) UP-01-424.
(6) UHD-5063.
(7) UP-01-655.
5. As per police report, the above trucks were coming from Almora and were proceeding to Haldwani. The goods of the above trucks were requisitioned under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the Depot Officer, Lease Depot, Forest Department, Kathgodam who had custody of the goods of the above trucks. From the statement of the drivers of these trucks it was not clear that who were the real owner of these trucks goods, hence these drivers were treated as owners of the goods, because the goods were in their immediate possession. Accordingly, the notices under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued on 1-11-1996 to the following drivers:
(1) Shri Ramesh Chandra Pathak.
(2) Shri Gopal Sharma.
(3) Shri Lalit Mohan Pethshali.
(4) Shri Kanti Swaroop Rawat.
(5) Shri Sanjay Joshi.
(6) Shri Kamala Pati Joshi.
(7) Shri Ram Singh.
All the above notices returned unserved. Again on 30-6-1997, the above notices were again issued and again they remained unserved. Later on, summons under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued on 18-8-1997 to all the owners of the trucks to verify from them that whose goods were being transported by their trucks. The owners of the trucks are as under:--
Truck No. Name of the owners (i) UP-02-3737 Smt. Deepa Bhatt. (ii) UP-02-4114 Smt. Maha Devi Bhatt. (iii) UP-01-1011 Shri Tika Ram Panda. (IV) UGP-4890 Shri Hayat Singh. (v) UP-0 1-424 Shri Sunil Kumar Pethshali. (vi) UHD-5063 Shri Vikram Singh. (vii) UP-01-655 Shri Narain Dutt Bhatt.
In response to summons under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Smt. Deepa Bhatt and Smt. Maha Devi Bhatt, the owners of the trucks at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, submitted that their trucks were carrying the goods of M/s. Laxmi Varnish Udyog, Haldwani to M/s. Pushkar Industries, Artola, Distt. Almora and owners of other 5 trucks submitted that their trucks were carrying the goods of M/s. Jageshwar Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Almora. The details of the goods on truck at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 are as under:
Truck No. Name of goods Quantity with rate Value
UP-02-3737 Rosin 390 tins at the rate of Rs. 650 per tin. 2,53,500
Turpentine Oil 1000 lts. at the rate of Rs. 21 per lt. 21,000
UP-02-4114. Rosin 260 tins at the rate of Rs. 650 per tin. 1,69,000
Varnish 2800 lts. at the rate of Rs. 21p.lit. 58,800
Total 5,02,300
6. In the case of M/s. Laxmi Varnish Udyog, the assessee along-with the counsel appeared before the Assessing Officer. Regarding the source of investment in the above said stock, the assessee submitted that the above goods were being transported from its sale depot, Haldwani and stock as per stock register has been shown as under:
Opening stock as on 1-4-1996 Rosin Turpentine Varnish 52.28 qntls. 3,2 10 litres. 7,160 lts.
Goods received for sale from M/s. Bhatt Industries.
11 3.90 qntls. 1,000 litres. 2,800 lts.
Goods received for sale from M/s. Rajeev Enterprises.
40.50 qntls. 697 litres. -
Goods manufactured from 60 qntls. Of leesa.
40.50 qntls. 697 litres. -
________________________________________________________________________ 247.18 qntls. 5,604 litres. 9,960 lts.
__________________________________________________________________________ Against the above stock, the sale of goods, as per stock register, were as under:
Rosin Turpentine Oil Varnish 11 0.5 qntls. 1,000 litres. 2,800 litres.
The assessee, therefore, submitted that it had sufficient stock of finished goods with it. It was further submitted that the sales were on credit to M/s. Pushkar Industries for the first time. For the purpose of rates of rosin and turpentine, the assessee has furnished copy of sale bills dated 29-8-1996 made in the name of M/s. Rajeev Enterprises and M/s. Harish Kumar and Co. which shows the rates of Rosin at Rs. 450 per tin, rate of Turpentine Oil at Rs. 10.50 per litre and that of Varnish at Rs. 12.50 per litre. The Assessing Officer from the above submissions decided the following issues:
(1) Whether the trucks were coming from Almora to Haldwani or they were going from Haldwani to Almora?
The Assessing Officer mentioned that the Police Authorities who intercepted the above trucks on 30-8-1996 have clearly mentioned in their FIR that the trucks were coming from Almora and they were going towards Haldwani. Even the drivers of these trucks stated to the Police Authorities that they were coming from Almora. Secondly, it was mentioned that the market of finished goods are the areas other than hills, like New Delhi, Bareilly and Lucknow etc. The contention of the assessee that finished goods were going to Almora, is not believable on the ground that market of finished goods is not at Almora. The assessee has taken this plea that the trucks were going from Haldwani, is only on account of the fact that the sale depot of the assessee is at Haldwani where finished goods were lying as per their stock register. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the trucks were coming from Almora and were going to Haldwani.
(2) Whether the assessee had ample stock with it to make the above sales?
The Assessing Officer observed that as regards availability of stock for the above sales, the assessee has produced the stock register of Haldwani sale depot. The scrutiny of stock tallies from 1-4-1996 to 28-9-1996, shows that the assessee received goods from M/s. Bhatt Industries, Almora for which only letter from M/s. Bhatt Industries, has been filed. No bills are reported to have been issued from M/s. Bhatt Industries, Almora. Even till date, no bill of M/s. Bhatt Industries, has been filed. Further, scrutiny of the chart of stock shows that assessee received goods from M/s. Rajeev Enterprises for sale on commission basis but no bill or any letter from M/s. Rajeev Enterprises has been furnished. Thirdly, the assessee has shown manufacturing of own stock of Rosin (40.50 qntls.), Turpentine Oil (697 litres) from raw-leasa of 60 qntls. purchased from the Forest Department. No evidence regarding this purchase of raw-leasa of 60 qntls. has been furnished. Thus, it is noticed that exact opening stock of these goods, the assessee could not prove the receipt of goods from other parties and own manufacturing of the above products, as mentioned above. Thus, the stock position furnished by the assessee for Haldwani sales depot was not believed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in view of the above facts held that the goods were coming from Almora where the assessee has no stock of finished goods. As such total goods in these two trucks remained unexplained and investment therein was treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
(3) What was the rate of sale of above goods?
The Assessing Officer as regards the rates of these goods found that the assessee has shown the sale rate of Rosin at Rs. 400 per tin and Turpentine Oil at Rs. 10 per litre and that of Varnish at Rs. 15 per litre. As the rates of these goods as shown by the assessee appeared low, the local enquiries were made. On the basis of local enquiries, it was gathered that the average market rates of these goods are as under:
Rosin Rs. 550 per tin.
Turpentine Oil Rs. 15 per litre.
Varnish Rs. 16 per litre.
The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that the value of the goods of the two trucks are in a sum of Rs. 4,17,300. The Assessing Officer considering the profit and undisclosed investment in the goods computed the total undisclosed income of Rs. 4,17,300 and directed to charge tax thereon for the block assessment.
7. In the case of M/s. Jageshwar Rosin and Turpentine Factory, the owners of the trucks submitted that they were carrying the goods of the assessee M/s. Jageshwar Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Distt. Almora to M/s. Kiran Industries and M/s. Pushap Varnish Udyog, Almora. Similar submissions were made by the truck drivers also. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice under Section 158BC and by calculating the description of goods with the rates as done in case of other assessee held that the assessee is required to explain the nature and source of investment in the goods carrying on in the trucks. The assessee in reply to the statutory notice submitted that the assessee is a registered firm having four partners, S/Shri Harish Bhatt, Rakesh Bhatt, Smt. Khimikhi Devi and Pankaj Bhatt. It was further submitted that the factory of the firm is at Artula, Distt. Almora and its sale depot is at Haldwani. This firm is being regularly assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer, Almora. This firm is also being assessed to sales tax and copy of the assessment order was filed. It was further submitted that on 29-8-1996, the goods were sold to different parties of Almora from its sales depot at Haldwani. The names of the purchasers are M/s. Pushap Varnish Udyog and M/s. Kiran Industries of Almora through different bills, details of the same arc mentioned in the assessment order. The assessee filed copies of the bills etc. and submissions are recorded in order. The Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee and stock position etc. similarly raised the three issues as have been mentioned earlier in the case of M/s. Laxmi Varnish Udyog with regard to the movement of the goods whether the trucks were going from Haldwani to Almora or vice versa and that whether the stock was available with the assessee at Almora factory or Haldwani sales depot and that what are the market rates of the goods.
8. The Assessing Officer on the same basis of lodging of FIR with the Police Station held that the contention of the assessee that the trucks were coming from Haldwani to Almora is not correct. On the second issue, the Assessing Officer further held that the trucks were carrying on unauthorized goods and does not tally with the stock register of the assessee. The same reasoning had been given as had been given in the case of other assessee and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it was held that investment in above stock was treated as unexplained and treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the rates prevailing for the items intercepted by the Police estimated the value of the undisclosed investment in the stock and profit and computed the undisclosed income at Rs. 10,86,500. Both the assessment orders by different assessees have been challenged before us in first appeals.
9. The learned representatives of both the parties have argued in IT Appeal No. 268 (Delhi) of 1997 in the case of Laxmi Varnish Vdyog and have submitted that the facts are similar in both the cases the order in the case of M/s. Laxmi Varnish Udyog may be followed in the case of M/s. Jageshwar Rosin & Turpentine Factory. The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that the goods were in possession of the Depot Officer, Kathgodam upon which the Income-tax department requisitioned the goods under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has further submitted that in this case the goods were never handed over by the D.O. to the Income-tax department in pursuance to the requisition under Section 132A(1) and illegally auctioned by Forest Department, therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 132A(1) or resultant framing of the block assessment order under Section 158BC should be quashed. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the goods were in the custody of the court, therefore, no requisition under Section 132A(1) should be issued. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sadruddin Javeri v. Government of AP and the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Khader v. Sub-Inspector of Police .
10. On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that there is no need for handing over or delivery of the goods in question in pursuance to the requisition under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the block assessment would be valid, the moment the requisition under Section 132A(1) is served upon the concerned Officer or authority, who have seized the goods/assets.
11. We have considered the rival submissions. However, we do not agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides:
132A. (1) Where the (Director General or Director) or the (Chief Commissioner or Commissioner), in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that -
(d) and (b)** ** **
(c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Then, the (Director General or Director) or the (Chief Commissioner or Commissioner) may authorize any (Joint Director), (Joint Commissioner), (Assistant Director or Deputy Director), (Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner) or Income-tax Officer referred to as the requisitioning officer or authority referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c), as the case may be, to deliver such books of account, other documents order assets to the requisitioning officer.
Sub-clause (2) of Section 132A(1) provides that on requisition being made under Sub-section (1), the officer or authority referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c), as the case may be, of that Sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody.
Sub-clause (3) of Section 132A(1) provides that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of Sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall apply.
The requirement of the aforesaid provisions would thus be that in case where the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession has reasons to believe that any asset represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of Indian Income-tax Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force may authorize the authorized officer to require officer or authorities to deliver the assets.
In case the delivery of the seized goods are handed over to the Income-tax Authority then the presumption would arise against the concerned person from whose custody or control the goods or assets have been seized as per Section 132(4A) or 132B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 158 BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides the procedure for block assessment and provides that where any search has been conducted under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under Section 132A, in the case of any person then the Assessing Officer shall in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period. In Section 158BC(b), it is provided that Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of block period in the manner laid down in Section 158BB. Therefore, the provisions of Section 158BC clearly provides that in case the documents or assets are requisitioned under Section 132A then it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to proceed for the block assessment under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in this case rightly proceeded with the assessment in the matter because of the requisition issued under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requisitioning the goods/assets which were seized by the police authorities in this case from the seven truck drivers. Section 158BA(1) provides for assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search and provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where after the 30-6-1995, a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A in the case of any person, then the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter." The combined reading of this provision would clearly prove that the moment the requisition is issued under Section 132 A to officer or authorities who seized the goods/assets, then the Assessing Officer shall have to proceed against the concerned assessee for framing the block assessment. The later part of Section 132A provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3) provides that presumption against the assessee, in case the delivery of the assets or goods have been made to the Income-tax Authority. In the aforesaid case, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not provide any material on record to show that the goods were handed over to the court for any purpose. The custody of the goods or assets in this case as recovered from the drivers have not been proved to be handed over to the court because of the fact that the requisition is issued in this case as per letters dated 18-2-1998 of the ACIT, Haldwani on 23-9-1996 and 27-9-1996 immediately after seizure on 30-8-1996. Merely because the goods/assets have not been delivered to the Income-tax Authorities in this case by itself is not enough to conclude that proceedings have to be quashed in the matter. There is no requirement under Chapter XIV-B and under Section 158BA(1) or 158BC for delivery of the goods/assets in pursuance to the issue of requisition under Section 132A for proceedings to determine undisclosed income for the block period. No adequate material is produced before us to prove that before any requisition is issued in the matter by the Income-tax Authorities the goods were in the custody of the Criminal Court concerned.
12. In the case of Abdul Khader (supra), the undisputed fact as observed in this order are that while warrant under Section 132A was issued, the goods were in the custody of the Judicial Magistrate. The Hon'ble High Court on such facts held that Section 132A does not empower the Commissioner to require the court to deliver the assets because the provisions under Section 132A are referable only to the Officer or authority referred to under Sub-section (1) and not the court.
13. In the case of Sadruddin Javeri(supra), the facts were that the police officer searched the house of the petitioner and recovered material from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner made out a case that those goods have been recovered illegally and that due to certain background the assessee was able to prove that the police authorities have taken undue action against him and thereby registered a false case against the assessee. The petitioner in this case filed a writ before the Hon'ble High Court and High Court after considering various aspects of the matter directed that in this case the authorities have contravened the laws in the course of search and seizure of properties and thus violated the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble High Court has directed in this case that the court is alone competent to decide about the custody of the properties allegedly seized in the course of investigation of a case registered with the police under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also observed that any order could be passed by the court for delivery of the goods. Therefore, delivery of goods to Income-tax Authorities is not proper in pursuance of the requisition issued under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble High Court accordingly, granted the release of the properties seized from the house of the petitioner and also granted a compensation. The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid case, the police recovered articles in pursuance of the provisions contained under Section 102 of the Cr. P.C. This provision provides that police may seize the articles which are suspected to be connected with the some offence of the criminal in nature. No proper case, therefore, would have been registered till it is established that the goods are connected with the crime that to whom these articles are belonged in fact. The Hon'ble High Court considering the submission of the petitioner the Police Officer acted illegally held that provisions of search and seizure have not been properly complied with by the police authorities and when the seized goods were suspected to be connected with the offence and then the same should have been reported to the Criminal Court concerned and in that event it was held that the delivery of the goods should not have been linked to the Income-tax authorities without permission of the Court.
14. However, the present case before us is clearly distinguishable on facts because in this case the goods/assets were connected with the offence under Section 4/14 of U.P. Rosin & Other Forest Produce Act which were recovered in the midnight by the police authorities as the same were transported without permission of the Forest Authority. No proper documents of goods were found. Therefore, the cases under the aforesaid provisions were registered against the truck drivers. The Income-tax authorities have acted on the information that the goods/assets seized in the matter pertained to the forest produce which were being transported without permission of the forest department and as such connected with the offence mentioned above. Therefore, the undisclosed investments in those seized goods were found connected with both the assessees. The Income-tax authorities on such facts rightly formed their view that those goods or assets would not have been disclosed to the Income-tax Authorities for the purpose of explaining the nature of the investment in those articles. The Income-tax authorities, therefore, properly acted in the matter and properly issued the requisition under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We accordingly, do not find any illegality in the proceedings in the matter for issuing a requisition under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or there sultant block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We may also mention that the requisition of the goods/assets under Section 132A(1) is a matter in domain with Income-tax authority under Act which is also prior to the proceedings for the block assessment and as such it is not subjected to judicial scrutiny in Income-tax appeals. We accordingly, do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The same is, therefore, rejected.
15. Now we consider the remaining submissions of the parties.
16. The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that the assessees have shown the goods in the stock register which were explained before the Assessing Officer and as such it is not undisclosed income in block period.
17. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessees never disputed ownership or possession of the seized goods. The learned D.R. further submitted that the drivers are convicted for the offence of carrying the goods without the permission of the Forest Department and the releasing of the goods in favour of the assessee has been rejected by the Criminal Court, Nainital. Therefore, it was for the assessee to explain investments in the goods seized from the possession of the truck drivers. The learned D.R. submitted that since in this case the assessees have failed to make any satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer with regard to the transportation of the goods illegally, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating it to be undisclosed income in the block period. The learned D.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly concluded that the goods were transported from Almora for which no valid explanation has been filed and as such availability of the stock as per stock register is unbelievable. The learned D.R. further submitted that the trucks were not carrying any valid permission and no stock register if any maintained at Almora was produced to account for the goods seized from the truck drivers.
18. We have considered the rival submissions and material available on record. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the police report and related material held that the trucks were coming from Almora and were going to Haldwani. The statement contained in the FIR is ultimately found to be correct by the Criminal Court while convicting truck drivers for the offences punishable under Section 4/14 of the U.P. Rosin and Other Forest Produce Act. The truck drivers preferred appeals before the Session Judge, Nainital and the learned Session Judge, Nainital maintained the findings of the lower Criminal Court and ultimately held that the goods were transported illegally without the permission from the Forest Department from Almora to Haldwani. The Court did not believe the explanation that the goods were sent from Haldwani, therefore, convicted but ultimately their sentence of imprisonment was reduced to already undergone at the appellate stage. The findings of the Assessing Officer is, therefore, corroborated by the findings by the Session Judge, Nainital while convicting the accused persons/drivers who were transporting the goods illegally from Almora to Haldwani. The findings of the Assessing Officer are also corroborated by the judgment of the Session Judge, Nainital because the goods were being carried illegally in the midnight about 3-4 A.M. and the Hon'ble Session Judge has also taken judicial notice of the fact that the goods seized by the authorities were products of leesa which are not used in Hilly area, therefore, in Hilly area there are no factory of these products and as such there is no question of the goods being transported from Haldwani to Almora. The findings of the learned Session Judge are, therefore, very specific and confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer that the goods were being transported illegally from Almora and were going to Haldwani because the goods were finished goods. In this view of the matter, there is no question of giving any satisfactory explanation with regard to the availability of the stocks with assessees at Almora. Whatever material was produced by the assessees before the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to hold that the assessee has been able to explain the transportation of the goods with valid permission or through the valid documents. In the absence of any sufficient material before the Assessing Officer, we are unable to interfere into the findings of the Assessing Officer. It is undisputed fact that truck drivers were carrying on goods/assets on behalf of both the assessees. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee owned, controlled and possessed the goods in the trucks which were being transported illegally in the midnight. Onus, therefore, shifted upon the assessee to prove that the goods were being carried out through the valid permission and on the strength of the valid documents. The assessee could not explain those facts before the Assessing Officer. The fact remains that the assessees have not been able to account for the investments in the finished goods being transported in the midnight in the trucks. The Income-tax Authorities are entitled to pass assessment order by taking into consideration the principle of pre-ponderance of probability. The Income-tax Authorities on proper appreciation of the facts and material gave a specific finding against the assessee which have not been rebutted by the assessee by any cogent or reliable material. The goods/assets were ultimately forfeited as per order of the Session Judge, Nainital as the accused were convicted for the offences mentioned above. Therefore, it is specifically proved that the assessee has failed to account for the transportation of the goods/assets in the matter. In this view of the matter and in the absence of proper explanation on record, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference. We accordingly uphold the findings of the Assessing Officer. There is no challenge to the quantity and rates of goods before us as calculated by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any other material on the issue, we do not find it a fit case for interference. We accordingly, uphold the findings of the Assessing Officer and reject this ground of appeal of the assessees.
19. The learned Counsel for the assessees alternatively submitted that since the goods have been confiscated and illegally auctioned by the Forest Department without permission from Income-tax Department, the Assessing Officer may be directed to recover sale proceeds and adjust against demand of tax.
20. We find no merit in the submission. The seized goods were found to be connected with criminal case and forfeited as per order of Court, on conviction of truck drivers. As per criminal law the auctioned amount shall vest in State Government. Therefore, the assessees cannot ask for adjustment of tax out of auctioned amount. Moreso recovery part is matter of the Department cannot be agitated in appeal in this way. This contention is also rejected.
21. In view of the above findings and discussion, we confirm the order of the Assessing Officer and dismiss both the appeals of the assessees.
22. No other point or issue is argued or pressed.
23. As a result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed.