9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of common authorisation u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Irregularities during the search. 3. Retention of documents beyond the stipulated period u/s 132(9A). 4. Post-search illegalities. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of Common Authorisation u/s 132(1) The petitioners contended that the authorisation dated December 7, 1999, was illegal as it was a common authorisation for 15 separate parties, which in law, cannot be issued. They argued that the petitioners had no connection with the other 13 parties, and thus, the authorisation suffered from non-application of mind. The court, however, held that as per section 2 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, singular includes plural, and there is no prohibition against issuing a common authorisation when interconnected transactions are involved. The court found that there was material available to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners had undisclosed income or property, thus rejecting the petitioners' contention. Issue 2: Irregularities During the Search The petitioners alleged several irregularities during the search. However, the court noted that there was no material in the petition to substantiate these allegations, and thus, the respondents could not be expected to address these vague claims. Issue 3: Retention of Documents Beyond the Stipulated Period u/s 132(9A) The petitioners argued that the authorised officer retained the documents and books of account seized from them for more than 15 days, violating section 132(9A). The court referred to conflicting judgments from the Madras High Court but ultimately decided not to express an opinion on the legal contention. The court noted that the documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer before January 18, 2000, and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the petitioners by their retention beyond 15 days. The court cited the principle that the illegality of search does not vitiate evidence collected during such search. Issue 4: Post-Search Illegalities The petitioners claimed that the documents seized were sealed and should not have been used by removing the seal. They alleged that copies of the documents were circulated to other parties. The respondents denied breaking any seals and clarified that the seals were placed in a manner that allowed for photocopying without removal. The court found this explanation satisfactory and dismissed the petitioners' contention. Order The petition was dismissed, and the notice was discharged with no order as to costs.
|
