9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to warrant of authorisation under section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and release of seized amount and documents. Analysis: The petitioners, a company and its officials, filed a writ petition seeking to set aside a warrant of authorisation dated September 17, 1998, under section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which authorized the requisition of Rs. 50,00,000 and other documents. The petitioners argued that the conditions for issuing the warrant were not met as the assets seized did not represent undisclosed income. The petitioners contended that the warrant was issued solely on the basis of suspicion, lacking proper reasoning. The petitioners emphasized their regular tax compliance and the intended use of the seized amount for customs duty payment, as evidenced by letters seized along with the cash. The respondent, on the other hand, justified the warrant issuance based on information received from the police indicating that the seized cash appeared to be undisclosed income. The respondent argued that the police failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the source of the cash, leading to the suspicion of undisclosed income. The respondent relied on legal precedents to support their position that the warrant was validly issued under section 132A(1) of the Act. The court analyzed the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the warrant was issued solely on the basis of suspicion, without concrete evidence of undisclosed income. The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for issuing such warrants. The court highlighted that the seized letters clearly indicated the intended use of the cash for customs duty payment, undermining the suspicion of undisclosed income. Based on the legal principles and precedents cited, the court found that the conditions precedent for issuing the warrant under section 132A(1) were not met. Therefore, the court set aside the warrant and directed the release of the remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000. The court affirmed that the Revenue authority could still conduct an enquiry regarding the amount as per income-tax laws, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to disclose and explain the amount in their tax return. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, ruling in favor of the petitioners without imposing any costs.
|
