9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against warrant of authorisation under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the warrant of authorisation dated 7.5.96 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners, traveling with a significant cash amount seized by police authorities, were subject to income tax scrutiny. The Income Tax authority recorded their statements and moved an application to retain the cash during pending proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The respondents defended the authorisation as legal and within jurisdiction. The court proceeded to hear arguments and examine the original record regarding the information available to the authorising officer. The court emphasized that the "reason to believe" under Section 132A must be based on tangible material, not mere rumor or intuition. While the court's jurisdiction is limited, it can review if the authorisation is arbitrary or lacks proper reasoning. The court found that there were definable materials supporting the authorisation, indicating a valid basis for the decision. The court highlighted that the sufficiency of information is not for the court to assess, but the existence and relevance of information can be considered. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to a hearing before the authorisation, but the court ruled that in emergent situations, the authority can issue the warrant without a prior hearing. The petitioners could present their case later in the process, as outlined in the Income Tax Act. The court also noted the provisions of Section 113 and Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the tax implications on undisclosed income. Regarding the amount seized, the court directed the respondents to refund a portion to the petitioners, as only 60% tax was chargeable under Section 113. Despite opportunities, the respondents failed to justify withholding the entire amount, leading the court to order the refund of a specific sum to the petitioners. The judgment partially favored the petitioners, allowing the refund while preserving their right to contest the undisclosed income before the Income Tax authorities. In conclusion, the court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the refund of a specific amount to the petitioners and maintaining their right to challenge the income tax assessment.
|
