2000 (11) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence and authority of respondents to issue summons u/s 131 and conduct survey u/s 133A.
2. Validity of seizure and retention of documents u/s 131(3).
3. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 as an Assessing Officer.
4. Alleged violation of constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14.

Summary:

1. Competence and Authority to Issue Summons and Conduct Survey:
The petitioner challenged the competence and authority of the respondents to issue summons u/s 131 and conduct a survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that the summons and survey were without jurisdiction as no proceedings were pending before respondent No. 1. The court noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, had authorized respondent No. 1 to act as the Assessing Officer for TDS matters, thus validating the issuance of summons and the conduct of the survey.

2. Validity of Seizure and Retention of Documents:
The petitioner contended that the seizure and retention of documents during the survey were illegal and without jurisdiction. The court observed that u/s 131(3), the Assessing Officer has the power to impound and retain documents, provided reasons are recorded, and approval is obtained for retention beyond 15 days. The court found that the necessary approvals were obtained, and the actions of respondent No. 1 were within legal bounds.

3. Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 as an Assessing Officer:
The petitioner argued that respondent No. 1 was not the Assessing Officer and thus had no jurisdiction to take the impugned actions. The court referred to the definition of "Assessing Officer" in section 2(7A) and noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, had designated respondent No. 1 as the Assessing Officer for TDS matters. The court held that respondent No. 1 had the jurisdiction to issue summons and conduct surveys related to TDS matters at the Kanpur office of the petitioner.

4. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights:
The petitioner claimed that the actions of respondent No. 1 violated their rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court did not find any merit in these allegations, stating that the actions taken were in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and were necessary for ensuring compliance with tax deduction at source (TDS) requirements.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the competence and authority of respondent No. 1 to issue summons, conduct surveys, and seize documents. The court emphasized the practicality and necessity of allowing local income-tax authorities to make preliminary investigations in TDS matters to aid the regular Assessing Officer in making accurate assessments.