(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13-8- 2002 issued by the Assistant Director of Income Tax attaching certain immovable property of the petitioner namely, residential premises at village Serpura, taluka and district Bharuch. Under the said order, the petitioner was directed not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the said property without the previous permission of the officer.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the revenue placed on record a communication dated 24-7-2012 received by him from the Department in which it is stated as under:-
“2. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premise of Shri Daud Musa Kadva at village Sherpura, Tal. & Dist. Bharuch on 13.08.2002. Accordingly notice u/s.158BC was issued on 16.01.2003 by the ACIT, Central Circle – 1, Baroda. In response to notice u/s.158BC the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2003 showing total income at Rs.27,58,000/-. The order u/s.158BC r.w.s. 158BG and 263 of IT Act, 1961 was passed on 30.08.2004 determining total income of assessee at Rs.3,68,25,582/-. The assessee filed application before Hon'ble Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 31.01.2007. Accordingly, Hon'ble Settlement Commission passed an order u/s.245D on 29.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.1,21,21,119/-. The assessee had paid total demand raised as per order giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai.
3. All the demand raised by the Income Tax Department has been paid by the assessee himself. As on date there is nothing on record with the undersigned related to appropriation of assets in question.”
3. On the basis of such communication, counsel for the Department contended that the entire issue has become academic in nature. The petitioner having approached the Settlement Commission and also having paid the dues as provided by the Settlement Commission, no further disputes would survive.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions on this aspect, however, in view of the above communication, the seizure order would not survive.
5. In view of the above developments, we notice that the petitioner having approached the Settlement Commission and also having paid up the entire dues as directed by the Settlement Commission, as brought to our notice by the revenue itself, the question of further attachment of the property in question would not survive. With above clarification, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to either side to approach in case of difficulty. Rule discharged.
( Akil Kureshi, J. ) ( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki